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.

33 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: 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.

  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 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.

  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 B2382F29 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
  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 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)
    2. 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

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  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.

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

    Because he will crush you or buy you.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

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

    Tomorrow, consumer rights, customer forums and competitors websites.

    This net-neutrality business cuts both ways.

  10. 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!"
  11. 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
  12. 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 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.