Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Telecoms May Block Mobile Ads, Spelling Trouble For Google

Posted by timothy on from the scrabble-will-still-show-their-ads-to-me-I-bet dept.

Mark Wilson has news that may have a big impact on both advertisers and end-users who use their phones as portals to ad-supported websites. Several European telecom providers are apparently planning to use ad-blocking software at the data-center level, which would mean benefit for users (in the form of less obnoxious advertising, and less data being eaten by it) but quite a pickle for online advertisers, and sites that rely on advertising revenue. From BetaNews's article (based on this Financial Times article, paywalled): Talking to the Financial Times, one wireless carrier said that the software had been installed at its data centers and could be enabled by the end of the year. With the potential to automatically block most ads on web pages and within apps, the repercussion of the ad boycott could be huge as mobile providers try to wrestle control from the likes of Google. I just wish my mobile provider would start testing this out, too.

109 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. The customers will protest loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are you annoyed by youtube videos that cannot be viewed from a mobile device? Expect more of that. Provides will simply not serve content to the ad-free devices. Why should they?

    Vajk

    1. Re:The customers will protest loud by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Provides will simply not serve content to the ad-free devices.

      Good for them. Remember that thing about how someone who's only in it for the money does a worse job than someone who does it because they want to? This means it doubly filters spam.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:The customers will protest loud by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a gaping difference between people who do it just for the money, and people who want to do it, but only have time to because they can make it their living.

      I love software development, but frankly I'd be doing very little of it if I had to drive taxis all day in order to actually earn enough money to put food on my family's table.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:The customers will protest loud by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      There's a gaping difference between people who do it just for the money, and people who want to do it, but only have time to because they can make it their living.

      True but there's also much more content on the internet than anyone has the time to read, and the main constraint is in filtering out the gems from the crap.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:The customers will protest loud by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      This line of logic is awful. I love free content as much as the next guy, but would you say that fire fighters, teachers, or software developers ought to forgo salaries entirely? I mean, according to your logic they would produce better work if they did it for free.

    5. Re:The customers will protest loud by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      OK, now imagine what the world would look like if teachers and software developers got all their money from ads. I don't have anything against people getting compensated for their work, but keep in mind that the entire point of ads is to manipulate people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't -- advertisement is inherently hostile to users.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:The customers will protest loud by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      Some developers do get all their money from ads, (and some school districts do as well) but thankfully they are far from the majority. Ads are awful, but in criticizing them we will win more allies if we also think of ways to support the people attempting to make a living in the work they do. Journalism, art, etc are important things for a society to have. Taking a confrontational attitude towards those people is counter productive.

    7. Re:The customers will protest loud by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      I can view all youtube videos from my computer with an adblocker on it, and I see no youtube ad videos ever. They don't sem to be able to detect that, so how will they detect the data centres blocking them?

  2. Sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    until they start injecting their own adds. I'm sure such technology would never be used!

    1. Re:Sounds good by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      This. Or do you think telcos would do something like that out of the good of their heart? Please. Where's the profit in doing something for your customer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Sounds good by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds good? How is this remotely compatible with the spirit of network neutrality?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re: Sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dammit people. Stop starting with "This.".
      Like a toddler that isn't aware that his context may not be shared with others.

      This. This is important.

    4. Re:Sounds good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Pardon? I don't know about your contract, or the contracts in your country, but pretty much anywhere I know you get this or that many MBs of "free" traffic with your couple bucks and for every byte beyond that you pay through your nose and then some.

      I can hardly imagine them wanting you to use less traffic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Sounds good by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This. We all need to think about the toddlers a little bit more and throw some context in, instead of just starting our replies with This.

    6. Re:Sounds good by mysidia · · Score: 2

      I can hardly imagine them wanting you to use less traffic.

      They're better off if you pay for much more traffic upfront than you use, like the average subscriber does --- the overages are just to catch the small number of "heavy eaters", so reducing traffic would be a win with most subscribers using a prepaid monthly expiring allowance they won't hit anyways.

    7. Re:Sounds good by xarragon · · Score: 1

      Most likely they are after money from the advertisement networks for guranteeing that their advertisments will be let through. It is all about acting as a "facilitator" to all activities taking place on their network. Third parties have to pay to get access to their customer base.

      It could also be a move to get some sort of SSL/HTTPS MITM scheme into place, allowing inspection of traffic previously invisible to them. Certain governmental agencies would probably like that as well, since it allows "passive" interception without deploying software at the end points.

      The reason ad-blocking is interesting is because it is something your customers will applaud you for doing; however, it might be to the detriment of the customers in the long run. It could also lower the customer charge, if advertisement agencies are forced to bear some of the costs.

      It would be interesting to see how the CA infrastructure for mobile devices looks. Can carriers tamper with the CA remotely, using privilieged access to the device either during factory preparation or via OTA/(U)SIM-card access?

      It will be an entertaining show, since some advertisers in Germany has already sued Adblock Plus: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt... Or maybe it won't and they are all in on it! Tinfoil hats on!

    8. Re:Sounds good by dkman · · Score: 1

      Getting more customers. In business they call it "the cost of acquisition of a customer".

      But that's not what I came here to say. I came to say that I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I use ad block on my computers. I don't generally on my phone, but I also don't browse from my phone often. And I like the idea of blocking ads so they don't consume my data allowance.

      On the other hand I don't like my ISP filtering through my content. There's nothing to stop them from playing MITM (looking at you Verizon).

      --
      I refuse to sign
    9. Re: Sounds good by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hic.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Bad good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like a good idea (for end users anyway). But this is not. My operator should not decide what I want to see on not on a webpage. If I don't want adds, I use add-free versions of webistes or use an add blocker.
    Next time, telco will decide that anti-telco articles in newspapers are not worth downloading either...

    1. Re: Bad good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a lot of foreign crap we Europeans do not need nor want. EU citizens should know and think exactly the way the EU Commission tells them to. We stand united in our beliefs and our will to impose the Europeischesweltannschauung over the whole world, for its own good. Heil Europa!

    2. Re:Bad good idea by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      It looks like a good idea (for end users anyway). But this is not. My operator should not decide what I want to see on not on a webpage. If I don't want adds, I use add-free versions of webistes or use an add blocker.
      Next time, telco will decide that anti-telco articles in newspapers are not worth downloading either...

      Well, it IS opt-in. It is an extra service they offer. Still it is likely to cause trouble with content providers when they offer it generally, especially if they go through with trying to get money from ad-providers, but at this point that is only speculation.

    3. Re:Bad good idea by peragrin · · Score: 1

      mobile browsers don't allow adblockers. Besides Advertising currently takes up between 30-90% of the data transmitted compared to actual content.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re: Bad good idea by B2382F29 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong. You are using the wrong browser. Firefox mobile works fine with adblock plus...

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    5. Re:Bad good idea by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I just disable JavaScript. Works beautifully at blocking ads on the sites I visit from my smartphone.

    6. Re:Bad good idea by machine321 · · Score: 1

      I admin the proxies for a mid-size company (~1800 users). The "Advertising" category is always the highest bandwidth category, and about 50% of used bandwidth. We're considering blocking the category company-wide.

    7. Re: Bad good idea by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Actually, APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re: Bad good idea by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Unlike the desktop version of Firefox, though, mobile Firefox downloads the ads and merely hides them, meaning that on a platform where you really don't want to waste unnecessary data, FF mobile's adblock is merely an exercise in aesthetics.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    9. Re:Bad good idea by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think a bigger issue is that as long as ad blockers are optional extensions used by a small percentage of browsers, advertisers and Google are likely to ignore them. But the moment ad blockers become implemented wide-scale (like at the ISP level), the arms race will progress one step further and advertisers will come up with methods which break such ad blockers. e.g. Code their site so the content of their page won't load until their ads have first loaded. I've already run across a few sites which do this, and have to temporarily allow scripts from certain ad sites to run before I can view the content.

      Also note that in retrospect, Google advocating https for everything wasn't entirely altruistic, as it would effectively preserve a site's original ads barring a MitM attack or malware infection on the browsing computer.

    10. Re:Bad good idea by hawk · · Score: 1

      It only preserves their ads when they're coming from the same server or domain . . . of course, there would then be an arms race between the ad companies and blockers for obfuscation, a la 1980s copy protection . . .

      hawk

    11. Re:Bad good idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It ensures the content holding the ads is the real content (as otherwise a certificate error would appear if a MITM attack was happening), including the links to Google's Ad code, which also would be protected against MITM attacks via certificates. So no, it preserves all adverts served over HTTPS.

  4. Seems tempting, but terrible. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems tempting, but then you realize that they actually plan on taking money from the advertising companies to start allowing ads again:

    The idea is to specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues.

    Also keep in mind that this almost requires them to play MITM with certs, inspect your traffic, etc. which can then further be monetized, and new content injected. Phorm comes to mind.

    Add to that the slippery slope, and it should be evident to anybody that this is a bad idea - and one that has been struck down in the EU in the past already.

    As much as people may dislike ads, having them blocked at the ISP level is a patently terrible idea. I, for one, am hoping the legal weasels haven't found loopholes that would make legislators nod in agreement that this would be a-ok.

    1. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It could easily backfire - Google could just stop including sites using those ISPs.

      With the result of the customers of those ISPs being unable to get any traffic.

      Of course, the ISPs could then not block ads for their own sites again... which would then allow Google to provide ads again...

    2. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by Barsteward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I expect it may just be a play to get a share of the ad-money, "Hey Google, give 10% of the share of advertising and we'll unbiock the adverts"

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > As much as people may dislike ads, having them blocked at the ISP level is a patented terrible idea

      FTFY

    4. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      " this almost requires them to play MITM with certs, inspect your traffic, etc."

      Not necessarily. One fairly effective ad blocker on Android works entirely by using the hosts file to point ad sites to loopback. Requires root, though. But for an ISP to simply break DNS for ad sites would be pretty simple. No cert treachery or DPI required, and phones typically don't give the user any control over which DNS servers they use.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      The headline is missing the point.

      When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee (Google doesn't even take that extra 2% if carrier billing was used instead of Google Wallet).

      Google's main cash cow is really advertising anyway. But even with advertising, Google also gives a revenue-share to carriers. Google has been giving them this money without even being asked. Google knew from the very beginning that if it was going to be allowed to do business and advertising on cell phone networks, it was going to need the willing cooperation of the cell phone carriers.

      If this announcement is going to affect anyone, it's really going to affect Microsoft and Blackberry. These two do not share their spoils with carriers. In the case of the iPhone, Apple doesn't share revenues with carriers either, but at least Apple still has some decent leverage against carriers.

      So what should expect from this announcement? Ad-blocking may become a reality soon on cell phone networks, but don't expect this opt-in feature to come to the consumer for free against Google ads. Whatever cost it will end up being, it will have to be more money than Google is already paying carriers.

    6. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Seems tempting, but then you realize that they actually plan on taking money from the advertising companies to start allowing ads again:

      The idea is to specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues.

      Well, it could have been worse.

      Also keep in mind that this almost requires them to play MITM with certs, inspect your traffic, etc. which can then further be monetized, and new content injected. Phorm comes to mind.

      And "Phorm" it is!

      Add to that the slippery slope, and it should be evident to anybody that this is a bad idea - and one that has been struck down in the EU in the past already.

      We Europeans are very good with our bad ideas - and don't forget that what has been struck down in the past has a "right to be forgoten"...

      As much as people may dislike ads, having them blocked at the ISP level is a patently terrible idea. I, for one, am hoping the legal weasels haven't found loopholes that would make legislators nod in agreement that this would be a-ok.

      Since we are both Europeans as i understand, and since you seem to know enough about the subject, can you answer me this: I am pro-European, but... WHO DECIDES in our union my fellow European? Who is in charge? I am afraid that our (Con)-Federalism is going too fast and without citizens even knowing the basics about it.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    7. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Ah, yeah, got mangled in some editing around of my comment - that was supposed to come after the replacing of ads with other content :) Good catch, and good point as well :)

    8. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Extremely off-topic, but just to touch on the 'who decides' - those with deep pockets, of course. That's not me - it might be you, but I suspect not :)

      Let's face it, we can ask the same thing about our national governments, regional governments, municipal governments and local pseudogovernments.

      That's something that always strikes me as hilarious about U.S. politics. Case in point: same sex marriage. Several state legislators are arguing the case that the Federal Government should have no say in this and that it should be up to the people whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed. But when they say "the people",they really mean that it should be up to the states. Imagine if Travis County, TX (home to Austin, TX) made much the same argument that the state shouldn't have a say in this, that it should be up to the people voting in county level politics. The state would smack that down in a heartbeat - while letting counties having free reign on various other matters.

      So, really, which government decides anything in Austin, TX? Travis County? Texas State? The U.S.?

      It's not much different in the EU - the EU just has the additional hassle of the law of the handicap of a head start; cultures progressed quickly but individually here, so now a bunch of legislation that really should apply to all European countries instead has to trickle down through each nation's own legislation, bubble back up to the EU when they hit a snag, come back down, etc.

      We are indeed very good with bad ideas - but we do have a few good ones once in a while as well; executing on them remains a problem :)

    9. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Extremely off-topic, but just to touch on the 'who decides' - those with deep pockets, of course. That's not me - it might be you, but I suspect not :)

      It is me who must be blamed for your "off-topic" comment, since i ask you a question (and thanks for your answer). By the way... no, i am not one with deep pockets!

      Let's face it, we can ask the same thing about our national governments, regional governments, municipal governments and local pseudogovernments. That's something that always strikes me as hilarious about U.S. politics. Case in point: same sex marriage. Several state legislators are arguing the case that the Federal Government should have no say in this and that it should be up to the people whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed. But when they say "the people",they really mean that it should be up to the states. Imagine if Travis County, TX (home to Austin, TX) made much the same argument that the state shouldn't have a say in this, that it should be up to the people voting in county level politics. The state would smack that down in a heartbeat - while letting counties having free reign on various other matters. So, really, which government decides anything in Austin, TX? Travis County? Texas State? The U.S.? It's not much different in the EU - the EU just has the additional hassle of the law of the handicap of a head start; cultures progressed quickly but individually here, so now a bunch of legislation that really should apply to all European countries instead has to trickle down through each nation's own legislation, bubble back up to the EU when they hit a snag, come back down, etc. We are indeed very good with bad ideas - but we do have a few good ones once in a while as well; executing on them remains a problem :)

      As a Greek, i have *some* control to my national government (i think/hope!) - but i feel i have not any for my/our new (con-)federal European "goverment". I don't know in which level of our complex bureaucracy is discussed right now and even who is going to decide about the issue of the story: i am afraid that i will wake up tomorrow, this will be a law, i will ask my representetives in my national goverment, they will answer me "it is EU's law, we must inforce it as required", and when ask then my representetives in the European parliament, they will answer "it was a directive from some commity, we never decided something like that... sorry". I am very pro-European (excluding our -many- very bad ideas...), but we don't have a (con-)federal tradition as USA (or, we Greeks, not even as Germany for example), so this becomes problematic, even more because of our cultural differences. Anyway... i guess we European citizens can at least decide the winner of Eurovision!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    10. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee

      30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When most of the world buys an app on Google play Google gets 30%, and the rest goes to the app author. The carrier gets nothing, 0%, nada. Just like if you bought an app from the Amazon app store, or physical goods for that matter.

      Is it different in your country?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The next stage is for Google to provide an Apache plugin and some custom Javascript to detect if a client has been downloading certain pages without displaying the ads; if your IP address gets in the "Ad Blocker" blacklist, then all the content provider websites can just query the blacklist and refuse to serve content until you unblock the ads.

    13. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I noticed there are a lot of incidents of "people providing carriage" these days looking for any possible revenue streams they can get, legitimate or not. Mafia-Like. The big near-Monopoly residential broadband providers in the world want to change their role from common carrier to Mafioso Middlemen.

      Without Title II / Network neutrality regulation by the FCC.... the time has fast been approaching in the US, where if you want to go to http://www.amazon.com/ in your web browser, you would not be able to, unless Amazon made a deal with your ISP that includes a cut of every sale.

      It's similar to the idea of the electric company wanting to charge a percentage of the sales of every new device, before you are allowed to plug it into the wall (Your new iPhone charger must be hardwired by a POCO-approved installer, and the install fee is $50 plus 10% of the price of the new equipment shown on the sales reciept).

    14. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Ahhh you're Greek - Greece has been dealt an extremely raw deal and the EU knows they have Greece over a barrel. They can claim they didn't know that the Greek government wasn't being forthright with numbers - but they knew. Oh how they knew; I empathize with your situation.

      As for waking up to European directives - that's already the reality that we live in. The UK had to change warranty laws around (the consumers did not necessarily win there), The Netherlands suddenly had to declare downloading (of infringing content etc.) as illegal after a ruling on interpretation of the laws (whereas before that was legal), and is having to lubricate matters in order to charge foreign drivers a sort of tax for driving on German motorways; their original plan was already shot down as it singled out foreign drivers: now they actually plan on taxing everybody, but Germans can get the money back via a sneaky construction.

      It's mostly the bad effects that we notice, however - many cases of collusion have also been addressed by the European Union, not going bankrupt just for placing a 10 minute call or 1MB data download when across the border is something that has been addressed by the EU, etc. Some of these may have also naturally evolved, but the EU nudging doesn't hurt.

      I'm on the fence on whether on the whole the EU has been a net positive or negative, but from your perspective I can well imagine that there's very, very little to be positive about.

    15. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      - Greece has been dealt an extremely raw deal and the EU knows they have Greece over a barrel.

      No, the Greeks have been borrowing money from others on the good credit of the EU, pretending that they were using the money for infrastructure and development. Instead, they were simply out having a party with the money, and now that the creditors want to be paid back, they can't because the money is gone. Of course, painful as it is for the Greeks to hit the credit limit on their credit card, ultimately the people who are actually going to lose tons money on it are the lenders.

      I'm on the fence on whether on the whole the EU has been a net positive or negative,

      The EU broke down internal trade barriers, which is a good thing. But it was a Faustian bargain, as the result was a great loss of individual liberty and government accountability.

      In the end, though, the simple fact is that European national governments could sell their people down the river because the national systems of government in Europe were broken to begin with: Europeans had entrusted too much of their power to ruling elites, and those ruling elites did whatever was in their own interest, which was usually rooted in obtaining sinecures in the EU and engaging in massive crony capitalism.

    16. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
      You overestimate EU's intelligence and/or underestimate our Greek "intelligence"... i.e., too much credulity from "barbarians" and some Greek trickery, and we have a problem!

      Anyway, my issues with EU are mostly social-politic (e.g., "anti-racist/sexist/discrimination/e.t.c." laws/directives that are in reality "gag" laws) and not so much economic - actually i blame us Greek for our current "crisis", not any European (althrough they are not exactly "innocent victims"!). But as i wrote already, i am still pro-European, and i agree with what you wrote about the positive aspects of our union - it is just that i am not so ready for this (con-)federalism of ours... yet!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    17. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The next stage is for users to download the ads, but don't show them on the screen.

    18. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Google gets 30% and then gives it to the carrier. I know that for a fact. This is happening in your country as well.

    19. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?

      I'm not guessing. I'm just repeating what I've heard.

      If someone is violating an NDA, it's not me. I would never do that, even under a pseudonym. I've sourced this information from multiple people (granted, that information is several years old, so things may have changed, I don't know), but at the time even they didn't tell me this was private information (although in hindsight, it may make sense that it could be).

      Thanks to me anyway, a television satellite network even abandoned its plans to develop its own proprietary Google TV alternative. So it's not like this information is working against Google.

    20. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Here is the exact wording used from the Android Google Play developer console. The emphasis in bold is mine.

      For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.

      It doesn't say "goes to Google". You're the one who conjured up that wording.

      In fact when carrier billing is involved, the full amount doesn't even go to Google first, it can first go to the carriers, which then return the 70% commission back to Google for the app developers.

      In any case, please note that this text you selected was not the original source for my information. I'm just clarifying it because you're the one who brought it up and contaminated it with your assumptions.

    21. Re: Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Problem is verification though. The claim above could just as easily be something he pulled out of his ass. I find it very hard to believe that Google keeps 0% of their app store revenue when carrier billing is used.

      I agree. It's a tough pill to swallow, but equally tough to swallow would be how Google convinced all the carriers (even the carriers at the lower end of the market) to give up on their super lucrative and purposefully crippled ringtone/wallpaper/J2ME app stores in favor of Android phones.

      And by the way, this strategy from Google just didn't come out of thin air. There are online videos of Google executives talking about this problem with carriers very early on during the Barcelona GSMA World Mobile Congress. For instance, Google noticed that more than 50% of searches on Google originating from South Africa and Indonesia were actually coming from mobile phones (instead of computers).

      And they made some future projections and did the math, and they knew full well that being allowed to advertise on mobile phones wasn't just going to be an extra-curricular hobby for them, but a matter of longterm corporate survival. At least, that's what you'll get out of watching those early speeches, because it is true that they do not get into the specifics of how they were going to convince the carriers.

    22. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      This is just wrong. There is no carrier when I buy apps on Google play. I buy from the google web site. Most of us are not using contracts for mobile phones, my phone is unlocked, my phone provider varies with whatever SIM I use, they do not receive Play store money from Google.

      This is true enough if you're using a wifi-only tablet. On Google Play, it says "No Carrier -" plus the model name of my tablet. That being said, I have many phones, many of them unlocked, I can tell you for a fact that Google Play (even the web version) knows what is the last carrier I was using with each phone. I can show you a screenshot if you want.

      Also here is an old article. I say "old" because my carrier US T-Mobile no longer does this for any phone, even locked ones, but for a time, Google Play used to filter tethering apps from its app store search results (based on the request of carriers). And Google Play did this filtering even with unlocked GSM phones as evidenced by the quote below.

      If you just want to get out from under the carrier’s thumb, you’ve got precious few options. GSM phones that store the carrier identity on SIM cards can be removed from the device. Just power off the phone, pull the SIM, and power the device back up. Now your Play Store should be free from carrier interference. When you put the SIM back in, your apps selection will go back to the way it was, so no updates for the unauthorized tethering apps you sneakily downloaded. Also, rooted users can manually alter the files that identify the carrier, allowing them access to blocked apps.

      Obviously, that didn't prevent me from downloading an app from a web site instead, which is what I ended up doing anyway, but I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).

    23. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by countach · · Score: 1

      Then the ad companies just stop using DNS. That would work for about 2 seconds.

    24. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      ...I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).

      Also, I suppose that GSM carriers with mostly prepaid accounts don't have as much as an incentive to block apps on Google Play since it's so easy for consumers to leave them if they do.

      But note that Google doesn't even take a stand on this. It will side with the carrier if it chooses to block apps on Google Play. And it will side with the consumer if the consumer decides to remove the sim card from their device.

      One thing is clear however, it is that Google doesn't want to upset carriers (at least, that must have been the policy at the time that article was written three years ago. Obviously, as Android has been increasing its marketshare, its negotiating power has been constantly increasing as well, and it could suddenly turn around and decide to do everything different one day).

    25. Re:Seems tempting, but terrible. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The next stage is for users to download the ads, but don't show them on the screen.

      Big data analysis will show when the number of legitimate clicks drops below expected levels for a /20 or more of IP space.

      When it drops below acceptable tolerance; we'll replace content with a Captcha submission form that requires looking at an image or text shown in the Advert frame in order to successfully answer the Captcha.

      If the Ad is not shown, then the user won't be able to complete the Captcha.

  5. Do not want by peppepz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So they are going to peek inside my network packets, looking for ads? And modify them, in order to remove those ads? Sorry, but I don't need yet another big brother looking at my private stuff, whether it’s for my own good, for maintaining the order of society or for the sake of whatever replaced the STASI nowadays.

    Besides, what if I’m using TLS? Are they going to require me to install rogue certificates just to make their inspection more comfortable? No thanks. Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for “value added services” is over.

    1. Re:Do not want by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for “value added services” is over.

      They've never been in the dumb pipe business, and never will be, at least not as long as they can avoid that. They're in the business of making money off of whatever data flows through their pipe and will always look for ways to increase that revenue; wether it's charging for faster delivery of content or getting a cut of ad revenue. That becomes more critical as content companies seek to find ways to sell content to consumers beyond the traditional cable model and start competing more directly with cable subscriptions. If they ever truly became a dumb pipe they'd either jack up rates or simply let that business wither or simply exit it as it becomes a low margin business.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Network neutrality and the EU principle of free movement of goods and services comes to mind as counter arguments to the blocking of ads at the service provider level.

    3. Re:Do not want by phayes · · Score: 1

      It isn't necessary to decrypt TLS to block third party advertising networks like Google as the DNS names the certificates protect are passed in the clear during TLS negotiation.

      ISP level blocking like this is a very bad idea and if it becomes widespread expect to see many of the ad supported free sites on the internet disappear & much of what's left end up behind paywalls. I use all of the relevant tools to block ads in general but whitelist the sites I want to support. That'd be nigh impossible for ISP level blocks.

      I speak from some experience as I deploy firewalls & proxies that perform such blocks in corporate environments & my ISP is Free.fr.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:Do not want by mysidia · · Score: 1

      as the DNS names the certificates protect are passed in the clear during TLS negotiation.

      A privacy issue.... Hopefully, in the future, we'll add negotiation using DH of a shared secret between client and server, then exchange a Hash of the DNS name encrypted with a shared secret during TLS negotiation, instead of the actual name.

      That way, a third party cannot passively snoop on the TLS negotiation and work out the proper certificate name being expected by the client, without causing the SSL session to fail.

    5. Re:Do not want by phayes · · Score: 1

      I don't see your proposal gaining enough support to become standard. You seem to think that DNS names being exposed in TLS negotiation was an accident. It wasn't, it was compromise. There are legitimate reasons for some people being able to selectively block web traffic and your proposal would make things worse, not better. For example, there are laws in many countries that prohibit grade-school children from using the school's Internet to surf porn (though we all realise that they can do so on their home Internet/phone).

      Were the certificates being exchanged to become opaque those who want/need to block will do so using other means like IP blocks/reverse DNS lookups.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    6. Re:Do not want by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      So they are going to peek inside my network packets, looking for ads? And modify them, in order to remove those ads?

      Practically all advertising platforms push ads from their own servers not the website you are visiting for the simple reasons it is easy to do and more importantly ad networks don't trust site owners due to obvious direct conflict of interest. It is trivial to block most ads without inspecting traffic. A few ACLs in an ordinary router or blackholing several dozen domains in DNS would do the trick quite effectively. No exotic proxies or DPI required.

      Sorry, but I don't need yet another big brother looking at my private stuff, whether itâ(TM)s for my own good, for maintaining the order of society or for the sake of whatever replaced the STASI nowadays.

      The Interesting thing some types of filters are quite effective at denying capabilities to cross-site-stalkers which can enhance rather than degrade your privacy.

      I don't even care about advertising it is the considerable number of assholes who think they have a right to follow everyone around everywhere they go on the Internet that can eat static as far as I'm concerned. Most people have no clue because they can't see it... but anyone can get one real quick by spending a few minutes with wireshark while visting their favorite websites.

      Besides, what if Iâ(TM)m using TLS? Are they going to require me to install rogue certificates just to make their inspection more comfortable? No thanks

      Any ISP who forces filtering on their customers or requires installing rouge certificates to use their service is obviously inexcusable. From TFA it is not clear that ISPs actually intent to have the filtering be anything other than opt-in. It seems to be more about hyperbole and hersay than objective reality.

      Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for âoevalue added servicesâ is over.

      Competing with others... ROFL...

    7. Re:Do not want by countach · · Score: 1

      That would be true for the smaller sites, but not for Google, facebook etc.

    8. Re:Do not want by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that DNS names being exposed in TLS negotiation was an accident.

      The purpose of DNS names being exposed by the SNI extension is to facilitate name-based virtual hosting. It is not to expose additional information to 3rd parties sniffing the line; that part was clearly an accident. It can be fixed, and I see no reason why it won't be.

      There are legitimate reasons for some people being able to selectively block web traffic

      If someone's abusing SNI information for censorship purposes, then that's yet another reason this needs to be fixed. No a 3rd party sniffing to identify names and tampering with or "blocking" SSL traffic is not legitimate, for any reason.

      being exchanged to become opaque those who want/need to block will do so using other means like IP blocks/reverse DNS lookups

      One protocol at a time. There are other undergoing projects within the industry to privacy-secure DNS, so 3rd parties won't be able to intercept your DNS requests or figure out what DNS names you are looking up.

      As for IP blocks, there are always methods available of proxying traffic, including ToR... these could even get built into standard web browsers as a "fallback" connection method, if for some reason, a direct connection was failing, or in due course using default proxying, for additional source IP privacy shielding.

      New proxies are becoming available every day, so the major browsers just need to incorporate all available anti-censorship techniques, to ensure that network-based traffic tampering/interception won't work out of the box.

    9. Re:Do not want by phayes · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that DNS names being exposed in TLS negotiation was an accident.

      The purpose of DNS names being exposed by the SNI extension is to facilitate name-based virtual hosting. It is not to expose additional information to 3rd parties sniffing the line; that part was clearly an accident.
      It can be fixed, and I see no reason why it won't be.

      Other than from just about every firewall vendor... People like Cisco, Fortinet, PaloAlto, Checkpoint, etc and all the people who use their kit and who are currently widely "abusing" it.

      There are legitimate reasons for some people being able to selectively block web traffic

      If someone's abusing SNI information for censorship purposes, then that's yet another reason this needs to be fixed. No a 3rd party sniffing to identify names and tampering with or "blocking" SSL traffic is not legitimate, for any reason.

      Ahhh, So it's just you that decides what is/isn't justified in common Internet implementations now. I'd always found the fact that there wasn't a central reference for all that to be sooo awkward. Good to know that you're on the job then.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  6. Can't see it's a long term problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are equivalent laws in the EU to "common carrier", which means the ISP's are responsible for the content delivered, they just provide the pipe.

    They start doing more than that and they become liable for that kiddy porn download as well.

    (Not real smart)

  7. Don't poke the bear! by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Because he will crush you or buy you.

  8. Great News by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    If they block ads on moiles, then I will be abe to read Slashdot on my mobile. Currently, the ads completely obscure the story, and I have to resort to a desktop!

    Obviously an epic fail by /., but presumably they dont care about the loss of custom.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Great News by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I use firefox with adblock on my mobile. I'm guessing your on iphone maybe?

    2. Re:Great News by phayes · · Score: 1

      I've given up on reading /. on mobile for the same reason.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:Great News by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

      Use classic mode, just like I have for years. I also tick the box that disables ads.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  9. Proxied ads by pmontra · · Score: 2

    The workaround will be to proxy ads from the server. I bet that the ad networks will develop the technology for all the major frameworks. That will hurt servers' bandwidth, threads and CPU but it will make harder for ISPs to block ads because the URLs won't give away much. Unfortunately that will make the job harder for in-browser adblockers too so I don't welcome that move. I bet we'll end up with the same amount of ads and less ways of blocking them.
    BTW, how are they going to deal with https? Are they going to block the IPs of the ad networks?

    1. Re:Proxied ads by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      The workaround will be to proxy ads from the server. I bet that the ad networks will develop the technology for all the major frameworks. That will hurt servers' bandwidth, threads and CPU but it will make harder for ISPs to block ads because the URLs won't give away much.

      Never going to happen. Site owners are not trustworthy.

  10. Filthy business practices by bazorg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not a huge fan of Google and what SEO/advertising has done to the www, but I have to say that these guys are in the wrong. Sabotaging the competitor and demanding "protection money" is not fair competition IMHO. I want my ISP to be a carrier, not a curator or a gatekeeper. I have Adblock and I know how to use it, thank you very much.

  11. Today ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tomorrow, consumer rights, customer forums and competitors websites.

    This net-neutrality business cuts both ways.

  12. Good News by Tremin · · Score: 1

    Thank you for published the news.. http://pembebabet.com/

  13. Carriers better beware by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they start doing this they better beware, there's never been a better reason for Google/Apple etc to get into the carrier business themselves.

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  14. Hello by chocolatelime · · Score: 1

    Nice to heard about it

  15. They can't stop google from doing that. by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they can try... but they'll fail.

    First off, the only way they'll be able to tell one thing from another is by filtering ad domains. Well, if the ads all come from the same domain as the content then you can't filter out the ads without filtering out the content. So that's really easy to do... you can proxy stuff without any trouble. It means the ad companies need to trust google isn't inventing clicks but that shouldn't be a big problem.

    Second off, as other people have said, google could just pop up a message saying "sorry, due to actions by your local ISP, we cannot deliver this content"... and the consumer base in Europe would get their torches and pitchforks so fast the ISPs couldn't even maniacly cackle by arc light before their little castles were stormed.

    Third, the very nature of the internet is that information flows on it transparently. Forget net neutrality, what the european mobile ISPs are threatening here is more extreme. They're presuming to control web content. It isn't even a matter of speed or bandwidth... they want to literally control which ads show up. Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:They can't stop google from doing that. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.

      That internet died long ago. Just as with anything, the pioneers are pushed out once civilization arrives and starts paving streets, building stores and throwing up billboards.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:They can't stop google from doing that. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.

      Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?

      Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.

      Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:They can't stop google from doing that. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.

      Certainly, as when civilization arrive she frontier gets pushed farther and farther away.

      Also not when I say internet I don't mean it in the strict technical sense of the backbone that the web and other services use, but the vast ecosystem that has grown up around it.

      Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?

      I didn't say the internet died, I said That internet died - the one where companies weren't trying to get your information to market to you, where you could still advertising something for sale on USENET, send it off and actually get a check in the mail in payment. It was a different internet because gaining access wasn't as easy as signing up with an ISP, except in September when the newbies would get trolled until they caught on. Once there was money to be made a whole new group of people began using the net and its character changed forever. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different an the old, original intent dies just like the wild west died once the ranchers and farmers and merchants arrived to stake their claims.

      Much like the second and subsequent waves of settles in the US west changed it, the arrival of AOL and eternal September marked the beginning of significant changes in the internet.

      As time went on, things that use to be ubiquitous, such as USENET, have been replaced to a large extent by the web. The terms hacker and trolling have taken on far more sinister meanings than their original ones.

      So in the end, the explosive growth and arrival of commerce change dates internet into a far different place than it was even twenty years ago.

      Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.

      Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.

      Hope that helps. HAND

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  16. Seriously...what about net neutrality? by ltning · · Score: 2

    Whatever happened to the fight for net neutrality?
    Timothy can't have thought about this story for top many milliseconds before adding his 'insight' there..

    --
    Love over Gold.
    1. Re:Seriously...what about net neutrality? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to the fight for net neutrality?

      Net neutrality is only good when it does what we want, not when it prevents someone from doing what we want, such as blocking ads. It's like copyright, bad when used to prevent freely copying copyrighted works, good when it forces someone to comply with the GPL.

      Seriously, that is a common behavior. Just look at the small government Republicans that want the government to step in to force others to do things they view as right but to bug roff when someone wants it to stop them from dong what they want. Swap small government Republicans for liberal Democrats or any other group and you get the same result.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Seriously...what about net neutrality? by msauve · · Score: 1

      timothy can think? Now, that would be news for nerds!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  17. They have to buy bread for home by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    They will inject paid stories to news sites with a very little "advertorial" marking. They will do secret agreements to sell user data and no, there is no way to prove they did it. They will become biased for certain political parties, opinions. They will be sponsored by billionaire political activists like Koch brothers, George Soros.

    EU started to act like a 14 year old Internet troll lately.

  18. Net Neutrality by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Doesn't this violate everything slashdotters hold dear regarding net neutrality?

    The telecom providers are planning to put a filter on what they will transport, and then charge extra to let it through again.

  19. Unworkable without man-in-the-middle attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With HTTPS connections, which are now pretty much the norm everywhere, this just won't work without a man in the middle attack. If my telephone provider starts attempting this, I will just terminate my contract and take my business elsewhere. ISPs have no business interfering with the content of end users, even if it is advertising. If they are doing this to profit from providers, by trying to take a cut of profit from advertisers, that would be highly unethical. I am already paying for my bandwidth. What do ISPs want - to be paid twice, by both the content provider, and by their customer for the same bandwidth. The idea is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Unworkable without man-in-the-middle attack by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Since much of the advertisement content comes from a large but trackable number of hosted web servers and "content delivery networks" such as Akamai. Many of these web services have well defined URL's used to access their traffic, so quite a lot of filtering can be done by thoughtfully configuring proxies at the ISP, which need to handle and to cache this content anyway. The content stored in the proxy can also, itself be analyzed: HTTPS encryption doesn't help with avoiding that particular man-in-the-middle vulnerability.

      The ISP's have big interest in this because _they_ pay for the bandwidth upstream, and for the infrastructure to handle that bandwidth. If they can deliver what their customers want without the relatively huge overhead of all the third-party advertising spew on web pages, I'm sure it's worth some thought and even some infrastructure to support this. And the advertisers are not their clients, their users are their clients. Most users would welcome halving or even eliminating most advertising, just as most television viewers welcomed the 'MyChoice' and the various DVR manufacturers including features to skip commercials.

  20. Would this not be a copyright violation? by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 1

    Since the creator of the site intended it to have a look, that included the adverts and created it as such.
    Changing the look, would be creating a derived work and distributing it. In Europe there are also those artist rights rules I expect those would also be violated.

  21. Who Will Pay For The Internet? by Old+Aylesburian · · Score: 1

    The ads are paying for our 'free' service. No ads, no service. It's a simple equation.

  22. You block us, we block you by j1976 · · Score: 1

    What's stopping google from blocking an ISP/telecom that adopts this practice? I mean, if the telecom can legally block google, then google should be able to legally block the telecom.

    If the telecom's customers suddenly can't reach google search, gmail, g+ etc, they'd probably either switch telecom or ask for the ads back.

  23. "Benefit customers" by GoddersUK · · Score: 1

    which would mean benefit for users

    No, it won't. I don't want my ISP mucking with my traffic. I want to get what I asked for, I'll filter the ads myself thank you very much. Today they're filtering ads, tomorrow they're filtering "unsuitable content", by the end of the week they're injecting their own ads and by the end of the month they've lost (the European equivalent of) common carrier status.

    An opt in system wouldn't be so bad, but I'd still be concerned about the potential legal (common carrier) implications.

  24. Re:What happened to net neutrality? by GoddersUK · · Score: 1

    Europe doesn't.

  25. Main Reason by jmccue · · Score: 1

    Ads are the # 1 reason I have a old phone without an internet connection. With very low mobile limits I refuse to pay for seeing ads. Yes I know wifi ..... but that would force me to connect to what may be an unsecure connection when not at home.

    1. Re:Main Reason by ruir · · Score: 1

      If only someone invented something called a Virtual Private Network....

  26. Re:AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1, Informative
    There seems to be a problem with your use of English. I am not familar with the software you are talking about (other than AdBlock), and cannot understand this discusison at all.

    I do own a mobile, use browsers, etc, and do manage servers. I do natively speak English. I do not understand the majority of the sentences in this post, or the parent or GP.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  27. Re:All that will happen... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    .is that app writers, etc, will region lock their apps. They will detect where the users are at, and either block the installation, or block the running, of the app(s).

    You seem to thhink we want that shit! Getting rid of the concept of "Ad funded Internet" would be a massive improvement.

    The truth is, we dont really mind paying for well written, stable apps which work. We are prepared to try out "free shite". Once we find it is shite, we delete it. Blocking this could save us from wasting a lot of our time, as well as our data allowance.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  28. Finally! by jmv · · Score: 1

    Just what we needed to convince websites to switch to https!

    --
    Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
  29. So, their solution is.... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    I love the long game thinking of the EU.... So, the solution to lower bandwidth usage is to eliminate most web content that end users want access to....nice! Ad revenue keeps those sites alive. This is stupid.

  30. Random thoughts on ad blocking by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    At the moment the plan is to provide customers with the ability to opt in to an ad-free experience; it's not clear whether there would be a charge for this.

    ISPs should only be screwing with customers packets if users ask them to. Don't see a problem with opt-in filtering services generally as long as they remain opt-in. The Internet is a hostile environment and people have the right of self defense.

    *IF* ISPs actually intent to extort money from content companies the respective governments where such ISPs operate might have something to say about that.

    Described as 'the bomb', a system-wide block on ads is designed to "specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues," reports the Financial Times. There is a suggestion that ads could be blocked on an intermittent basis simply to get Google's attention and cut better deals for telecoms companies.

    I don't know what to make of this. It sounds like carefully worded propaganda to lead people to make assumptions based on hearsay alone. Do ISPs plan to drop "the bomb" or not? .. "there is a suggestion" ..... suggestion?????!? ... Is there evidence?

    1. Re:Random thoughts on ad blocking by countach · · Score: 1

      In the absence of net neutrality rules, it's an open question whether you could call it extortion.

    2. Re:Random thoughts on ad blocking by Drathos · · Score: 1

      "We're going to block your revenue stream unless you give us a piece of the action."

      Sounds like the Mafia protection racket of old.. "Nice shop you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it.."

      --
      End of line..
  31. SSL by WizADSL · · Score: 1

    Now we know the REAL reason for the SSL push from Google.

  32. Not a problem by Photo_Nut · · Score: 1

    Google will simply prioritize bandwidth of its services to IP blocks by **revenue**. When your ISP's revenue numbers plummet, so does the bandwidth / latency for your ISP's network. As ISPs are rated by customers for providing service, this will lead to competitors that are more neutral to be preferred among customers. Imagine the scenario of two strangers on a bus, one of which using ISP A seems to have an outage with Google Maps or News or Mail or YouTube because his service filters content and Google restricts bandwidth or adds noticeable latency as a result. The other uses ISP B and they have _fast_ access to all of Google's services. Both customers pay their ISPs. Which ISP serves their customers better?

    Suppose that that's not enough to get the attention of ISP A - suppose the added latency / limited bandwidth difference doesn't cause customers to call the ISPs customer service hotlines over and over again complaining about performance of YouTube and Gmail and Maps, etc. Google could then add a warning message to its services: "ISP A is filtering your access to Google services. We recommend you find another carrier that does not filter your service. Here is a list of ISPs in your area sorted by Google's performance measurements: ISP B - XXX GB/s, xxx ms avg latency, ISP C - YYY GB/s, yyy ms avg latency, ISP D - ZZZ GB/s, zzz ms avg latency."

    Netflix didn't have the balls to do that, but Google probably does. Granted, it's not the first measure that I would expect Google to use. They do after all have lawyers. I don't think we'll get to that point. There's probably an opportunity for Google to make business deals with competitor ISP B to carry traffic better _and_ advertise to ISP A customers for a profit, so even if ISP A and C ran afoul of Google by taking that approach, you could bet that ISP B would see the opportunity to snatch customers. The difference between the Mobile carriers and the US cable and phone ISPs is that the mobile carriers overlap far more and actually have competition.

    A perverse part of me wants to see some of this actually happen in reality...

  33. Google wins? by countach · · Score: 1

    So Google blocks you until you "opt in", and then the block has achieved nothing? I think users will opt in pretty quick if they can't access facebook.

  34. Re:AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by dave420 · · Score: 1

    HOSTS files can't block your spammy Slashdot comments (which is precisely what they are - undesired advertising), whereas your competitors' software can. If I don't want to see your nonsense, I won't reach for your product, but your competitors. Every single post you make is driving people away from your software and to your competition.

  35. Re:"Great minds think alike"... apk by dave420 · · Score: 1

    The owners of that software don't need to vomit psychotic nonsense all over Slashdot to get people to use their software. I'd say their minds are demonstrably greater than yours, which appears broken. You are spamming an ad-blocking service which can't block your spam. Do you not realise that is not what sane people do?