Time Warner Cable, my ISP at home, has elected to pursue a somewhat controversial route to better monetizing its users: Insinuating itself into their Web surfing behavior.

I'm probably making this sound more nefarious than it really is. The ISP has begun redirecting what it terms "web address errors" to a "helpful search page" -- chiefly, a set of Yahoo-powered sponsored search links.

In other words, you mistype a URL, and instead of getting an error, you get a list of paid search links, courtesy of your ISP.

From the company's FAQ on the practice:

Why should I use Road Runner's name redirect service?

Road Runner's redirect service makes finding website easier and more convenient. The service uses the entered non-existing website name to determine useful search results. Often, you will see a desired website or page that meets your needs.

Some users, I know, are up in arms over what they see as cybersquatting -- taking advantage of typos to make a buck. (Some also have, rightly, pointed out the irony that large companies like Time Warner routinely take a dim view of others buying mistyped versions of their domains names and monetizing accidentally misdirected traffic.)

Still others have pointed out the lax security and verification measures Time Warner has taken with its service.

I'm not getting into the ethical nor security implications of Time Warner inserting its own results page in lieu of a 404. Instead, I want to talk about the usability gaffe they've made here.

It might be a different matter altogether if the this "helpful search page" didn't actually override functionality that some users have actually built into their workflow.

For instance, my girlfriend was looking online for airfares the other evening, and decided to visit Orbitz. She -- like I can only assume plenty of others do routinely -- typed in "Orbitz" into her browser's location bar, omitting the rest of the URL as a timesaving measure.

Instead of Safari attempting to parse this into "http://www.orbitz.com" -- as many modern browsers are capable of doing -- it did something unexpected, sending her instead to Time Warner Cable's paid results page.

(Guess what the top result was? You're right -- Orbitz.) So, Time Warner actually added another step in getting to her destination, and undermined a user's accustomed Web-surfing behavior.

To Time Warner's credit, the ISP does allow users to opt-out of the service, and provides a useful "Why am I here?" link on its search results, to explain the change to confused users.

I suppose I'm not done ranting about mobile content and the Nokia news. I've deliberately not mentioned the obvious: Nokia is not a carrier.

With Ovi, Nokia is competing with the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft -- technology players making inroads into an arena long dominated by carriers, with their mobile portals. (I use "dominated" loosely here -- the space is still nascent and subject to dramatic change.)

The burgeoning success of these tech companies shows that we may be approaching some sort of post-carrier period, where content and services are delivered primarily through handset makers (like Nokia) and traditionally Web-based content players (Google, for instance, which has gone to great efforts to make its content accessible to a wide variety of mobile users.)

Nokia, I should also mention, may yet get creamed in the U.S. by the usual gang of Internet giants. Even if this is the case, it's Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like that will still lead mobile content; not carriers.

So where are carriers in all this? They're still (as ever) obsessively focused on subscriber churn, but they've also yet to connect all the dots in earnest: Compelling mobile content can serve as a major driver for subscribers while driving additional revenue through ads and fees. That should be all the more critical in today's era of (largely) commoditized wireless service.

Perhaps carriers have some grandiose plan for the coveted 700MHz FCC spectrum that involves rolling out rich mobile content and services. But somehow, I doubt it -- considering that they've done so little with the spectrum that they already have.

Nokia. We here typically think of the Finnish mobile phone giant as just that -- a handset maker.

But it's aiming to be far more. The company began rolling out its "N-Gage" and "Share on Ovi" offerings earlier this week, as Reuters noted. Both are designed to enhance its mobile portal and e-commerce service, Ovi.

N-Gage, of course, is the company's gaming platform, which debuted in connection with Nokia's ill-fated handheld game devices. It's since been retooled to support the company's mobile phones. The service makes its debut after some product testing difficulties that delayed its introduction several months.

Share on Ovi, meanwhile, is a file-sharing and social networking component for Ovi.

Together, the two additions signal Nokia's continued commitment to mobile content and commerce through Ovi, which is ostensibly designed to compete with MySpace, Facebook, and a host of their rivals.

With the new additions, it's poised to become even more of a challenge to mobile content offerings out there. As a result, the continued effort behind Ovi also serves to throw Nokia's rivals into sharp relief, highlighting the generally sorry state of mobile content.

Here in the U.S., carriers have dominated mobile content -- what little there is. To date, consumer content available through our mobile phones has been chiefly confined to news feeds and lukewarm efforts at selling downloadable games, music and video. (Though, location-based services may see some traction shortly, some believe. Nokia's poised for big things here, as well.)

The mobile portals offered by U.S. carriers, in comparison to their Asian and European counterparts, come across as decidedly lackluster. There's no compelling reason for the average consumer to spend time there -- despite the proven interest consumers have in mobile gaming and portable music (as if it needs to be said, think the Sony PSP, Nintendo DS and the Apple iPod/iPhone). Not surprisingly, uptake has been generally light.

We've long lacked the mobile services available to subscribers in other countries, which makes Nokia's plans seem still more exotic.

Mobile content is the carriers' market to lose, and they're doing a good job of just that. I've watched Verizon Wireless, for instance, fail to deliver a truly innovative killer app in the mobile content space, much less content that can even approach what we see on the PC-based Web -- despite countless alliances with vendors like Microsoft's MSN.

Is it any wonder that companies like Nokia and Google feel they can move into the mobile content space with impunity?