Mobile Giant Three Group To Block Online Advertising (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Global mobile provider Three has announced that it will shortly begin to block online advertising on all of its six European networks, beginning with the UK and Italy. The company, which also has networks in Hong Kong and Indonesia, will announce its partnership with Israeli network ad-blocking startup Shine at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, according to sources. Shine's first network ad-block customer was Caribbean provider Digicel last year, but the new Three Group deal seems set to cause massive disruption to web-based publishers — who, it seems, may have to pay for bandwidth and show more respect for user privacy in their ads if they want to continue to operate in the mobile space.

Comments

It Works Both Ways

[KermodeBear]

I wonder how many sites will decide to simply block users that are on Three's address space.

Then the issue becomes, "Who will want to use Three's service when all the sites I like to use aren't available?"

This could be very interesting.

Re:It Works Both Ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Next step would be for Three to redirect users to non-adblocker-blocked sites when they end up at an ad-blocker-blocked site. Including users that pay for that site. That way you deny the bad site revenue as Three users cancel their subscriptions.

Well, that might be going too far. Would be fun to see the sparks fly over that one, though!

Block me, Redirect you!

Re:It Works Both Ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so when I pay for bandwidth, you want to both control what I see and censor the publishers? Genius, I tell you, sheer Genius. So who are they selling the rest of the data to? They gather a lot from deep packet inspection?

Re:It Works Both Ways

[Alain Williams]

Then the issue becomes, "Who will want to use Three's service when all the sites I like to use aren't available?"

Simple: Three puts up a user controllable switch labelled: "Preserve my monthly data allowance for what I want to download (useless adverts blocked)". Enough people will not flip the switch that the advert encumbered sites won't want to block Three completely. This will also tell their users why some sites look different.

Sounds great, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

While I loathe ads, as I am sure everyone posting here probably does, I can't help but think that whenever people have tried to blanket block feature-xyz-of-the-internet-that-they-don't-like it invariably ends up failing and being a huge clusterfuck. Again, ads can go and suck it, but this does sort of sound like nuking the whole thing from orbit when maybe a closer inspection, or maybe just a wee peak, from the Colonial Marines is in order.

Re:Sounds great, in theory

[mattventura]

It will probably break stuff, but on the plus side this will probably force more content to move to HTTPS. With services like CloudFlare stuffing tons of sites onto the same IPs, IP-based blocking isn't even useful there.

Re:Sounds great, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate how easy it is to identify which traffic flows belong to advertisers... even if they are https.
Most adds are not hosted locally.

Re:Sounds great, in theory

[stooo]

>> people have tried to blanket block feature-xyz-of-the-internet-that-they-don't-like
This is not people. This is ISPs. They are in control of what people see ( and they shouldn't)
In this case it will force ad companies to switch from malware to reasonnable ad policies.

Re:Sounds great, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The Colonial Marines have already done the closer inspection by having a wee peak. Adliens were found. We are already at the nuke the site from orbit stage.

Re:Sounds great, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You can block DNS entries to make them not resolve.

Users of those networks will be blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't surprise me if more sites pull a Forbes and disallow anyone with an ad blocker turned on from reading their content. Wired has already announced plans to follow along. Three users may find that many sites don't allow them access because their provider is blocking ads. While I hope Three is successful in blocking abusive ads, I suspect they may be harmed when their users can't access some sites. It's a shame...

Re:Users of those networks will be blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an addblocker, and a scriptblocker and I can read forbes just fine

Re:Users of those networks will be blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the Forbes fiasco didn't work. I still see all their content, the blockage may have lasted a week or two.

Re:Users of those networks will be blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they block googlebot? Do they block Google from caching? If not, then those sites are only a browser plugin away from having Google cached versions of their site content served up whenever they adblock-block someone. And if they block googlebot and Google caching, then they block their biggest source of traffic. Most people don't know how to use the URL bar. It's that "scary" place where all that "junked-up gobbledegook" shows up. I've actually had people say things like that to me. So expecting those people to browse directly to forbes.com is a non-starter. And if forbes.com makes its robots.txt more restrictive in order to prevent page caching, then they risk losing those readers. And if it's not blocking googlebot, it's probably not blocking any of the search engine bots. It only takes one ad-hating bot to totally compromise their adblock-blocker.

Forbes will be the only one harmed in the long term by their user-unfriendliness. You can be sure of that. The internet routes around damage. That goes for the network topology as well as the more abstract rules the whole system works by. Users are beginning to view advertising as damage. You can just picture Jeff Goldblum saying, "life will find a way." Because that's how it works.

Internet providers blocking ads?

[fustakrakich]

That's just as bad as blocking porn or pirate bay. It's censorship. I'll do my own filtering, if you don't mind.

Re:Internet providers blocking ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here's something you probably don't know about Three: they do by default block porn. Although the UK is the only country in the EU where opt-out is mandatory, Three have porn blocked at least on their Irish network (and there's no law to have porn blocked by default in Ireland). And when I say porn, I also include non-porn websites that have non child-safe content (ex: there was an online custom t-shirt store that I couldn't access because some of the sarcastic content was not child-safe).

Re:Internet providers blocking ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have to do with Three Ireland using some of Three UK's infrastructure. Three doesn't block those sites in Austria.

Re:Internet providers blocking ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopping abusive behavior is not censorship. If you enjoy abuse so much, you're welcome to opt in by going with another provider who will gladly stand by while you get raped.

Re:Internet providers blocking ads?

[fustakrakich]

How do you get raped on the internet?

Re: Internet providers blocking ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very much this.

I am fine with OPTIONS to block at the ISP-level, but if it is done by Force, I will be getting a new internet dongle.

Lawsuits in 3..

[Anonymous Coward]

..2..1..

Seriously, I dislike ads as much as the next guy, and I use AdBlock plus on my PCs, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a network basically deciding that ad-funded content is now over. I guess their lawyers have checked this out, but it seems strange to me that a network can legally strip out ads that aren't breaking any law. Of course, that's probably not what they're doing; as this comment in the TFA says;

"It is reported that Three may only target the most disruptive and data-gobbling of ads, such as autoplay videos – and, more cynically, that advertisers will actually be able to run anything they like; except that now it’s time to pay, both for the privilege and the bandwidth."

As usual, if you want the truth, follow the money.

Re:Lawsuits in 3..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Adblock Plus is currently the most deceptive advertising operation in the industry, turning "ads per decision between web site and user" into "ads as long as you pay us a cut", while disguising itself as ad-blocking service. And it seems mobile operators want in on this revenue generation model.

Re:Lawsuits in 3..

[Darinbob]

What law says they can't block ads? Is there some Right Of Advertisers law in Europe? Is there a right for advertisers to steal your bandwidth also?

Re:Lawsuits in 3..

[Darinbob]

I have never seen an ad while I have adblock on. For me it is blocking ads, and blocking ALL ads. It is not deceptive because it does exactly what it says it does. So few advertisers have opted into adblock's whitelist that it really doesn't matter.

Networks VS Advertisers

[bazmail]

Networks VS Advertisers in a knife fight. Awesome.

Fuck 'em both I say.

Re:Networks VS Advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever wins, you lose. The provider can't block the ads unless they are scanning all your traffic, and then it's a small step to injecting their own targeted ads which would be far more intrusive than anything a website is capable of (and much harder to block). Providers aren't doing this to protect your privacy, they just want to own the monopoly on spying. This move is a power grab and a preamble to making the ad networks their bitches. Why do you think Google wants to build their own infrastructure?

Re:Networks VS Advertisers

[stooo]

>>The provider can't block the ads unless they are scanning all your traffic
Use crypto. Seriously, SSL sure needs a real update, but there's no reason to surf without it.

Net neutrality bait and switch?

[monkeyxpress]

Okay so this sounds great, but if everyone cheers them on for doing it, what is to stop them turning around in 6 months time and saying you have to pay extra to access youtube on your phone?

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Neutral means neutral--no exceptions.

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Financial suicide.

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[Ash-Fox]

if everyone cheers them on for doing it, what is to stop them turning around in 6 months time and saying you have to pay extra to access youtube on your phone?

Nothing, but nothing is stopping consumers from going to another provider either.

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[monkeyxpress]

I thought that, but I suspect that the biggest bulwark against telcos charging differently for content (which is something they all really want to do) is that most people just think of their ISP as a utility provider who shouldn't concern itself with what they are using the pipe for. This erodes the basis for that perception. Slippery slope and all that.

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[Ash-Fox]

I thought that, but I suspect that the biggest bulwark against telcos charging differently for content (which is something they all really want to do) is that most people just think of their ISP as a utility provider who shouldn't concern itself with what they are using the pipe for.

According to the article, they aren't charging differently, they're just giving an optional block for more obnoxious ads that they are looking to enable by default because those ads tend to cause customers to have larger expenses due to bandwidth consumption. I don't really see these as comparable.

Re:Net neutrality bait and switch?

[stooo]

>> Nothing, but nothing is stopping consumers from going to another provider either.
Not so sure about that. Usually ISPs copy each other pretty fast. Once one is doing MITM, others will follow suit.

network neutrality?

[ooloorie]

Doesn't this violate network neutrality? And if they place themselves in the position of being arbiter of what is advertising and what is not, don't they run the risk of being forced to make other content decisions as well? Don't they risk losing common carrier status?

Re:network neutrality?

[Ash-Fox]

Doesn't this violate network neutrality?

There is no shaping of traffic and this is optional to the user.

Don't they risk losing common carrier status?

Their ISP side does not have common carrier status, that's just the mobile calls/texts portion, so no they don't risk losing it, they never had it for the ISP portion to begin with.

Re:network neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

A business that runs a network can decide what's allowed on that network. I handle security for my company's network and I made the decision a couple of years ago to block all ads coming into our network. I save bandwidth, less worry about malware, cleaner surfing. Win.

Re:network neutrality?

[Richard_at_work]

Your questions are very US-centric, while this is a European network carrying out activities in Europe - for a start, Three is already obliged to make content decisions for currently standing court orders blocking The Pirate Bay et al, Ofcom doesn't enforce any style of network neutrality in the UK, and the same goes for many European countries, and there is no flat "common carrier" status that Three currently enjoys anyway.

Re:network neutrality?

[gstoddart]

There is no shaping of traffic and this is optional to the user.

Technically, no:

The release indicates that the ad-blocking will not be absolute and non-negotiable, and lays out three goals for the transition: that Three's customers should not pay data charges to receive adverts, the cost of which should instead be borne by the advertiser; that customers need to be protected from mobile ads which mine and exploit customer data without their consent or awareness; that customers should be protected from 'excessive, intrusive, unwanted or irrelevant adverts'.

The amount people pay to deliver the ads is a huge factor here.

The ad companies are using someone else's bandwidth for free, and the consumer pays to receive it. The carrier is saying "yeah, not so much".

But it aint optional.

Roi Carthy, chief marketing officer at Shine, has compared mobile ads to someone siphoning off a dollar of gas when you fill up with $10, as 'smog', and as 'ecosystem in which the cat has been allowed to protect the milk'.

The ad companies feel entitled to both the revenue and having someone else pay for the bandwidth ... I agree with the idea that, no, we don't owe them a damned thing, and we also can't trust them. I don't care about their revenue, I'll keep blocking them.

Re:network neutrality?

[ooloorie]

Your questions are very US-centric

No, they are not. Europe has also adopted a principle of net neutrality.

Three is already obliged to make content decisions for currently standing court orders blocking

So? Do you seriously think that US ISPs are not required to comply with court orders?

and there is no flat "common carrier" status that Three currently enjoys anyway.

Of course there is: European ISPs and phone companies are no more (and no less) responsible for the contents of user generated traffic as American ISPs and phone companies are.

Re:network neutrality?

[Richard_at_work]

"Europe" covers 50 or so countries, and none of them share telecoms regulations, so no, Europe hasnt adopted a principle of net neutrality. The EU, which is a subset of European coubtries, doesnt even have shared telecoms regulations, and none of the EU member countries have yet created legislation to enact the 2015 "net neutrality" laws passed by the EU parliament, so again, your assertion is false.

As to court orders, whether US ISPs have to follow US court orders isnt a matter of discussion - the fact remains that UK ISPs have to make decisions on content and content delivery, so that precedent has long passed.

Common carrier in the US has a legal meaning, it does not in the UK. You won't find Ofcom talking about common carrier status in its regulations regarding telecoms companies in the UK.

Re:network neutrality?

[ooloorie]

none of the EU member countries have yet created legislation to enact the 2015 "net neutrality" laws

Nor did I say they had. All I did in my OP was to ask whether this violated network neutrality, a principle that many in the EU are pushing for. See here. The rest is a bunch of delusions and straw men on your part.

Common carrier in the US has a legal meaning, it does not in the UK.

What a brilliant insight! Next you'll tell us that there are no elevators in the UK! And to top it off you'll observe (correctly) that ISPs don't have common carrier status in the US! You are just amazingly good at missing the point!

Re:network neutrality?

[ooloorie]

The amount people pay to deliver the ads is a huge factor here. The ad companies are using someone else's bandwidth for free,

Ad delivery is a deal between users, content providers, advertisers, and ad companies. The user wants to see content, but that content needs to be paid for. One way of doing that is showing ads.

I agree with the idea that, no, we don't owe them a damned thing, and we also can't trust them. I don't care about their revenue, I'll keep blocking them.

I have no problem with you blocking them. I don't even have a problem with Three blocking ads in principle. You should realize, though, that either of those things makes it a lot harder for people to start new companies and offer free content.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of simultaneously advocating net neutrality and ad blocking by carriers. Net neutrality is questionable enough to begin with, but if you impose net neutrality and then carve out exceptions for ad blocking and other "content we don't like", the whole thing just becomes a means of total control of network content over the choices of users.

Re:network neutrality?

[stooo]

>> The ad companies are using someone else's bandwidth for free, and the consumer pays to receive it. The carrier is saying "yeah, not so much".
You have never run a server.

Re:network neutrality?

[DF5JT]

In Austria Three (Drei) offers internet only vial LTE and thus by definition is a common carrier. Since they explicitly state mobile networks, not mobile devices, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have been a loyal 3 customer for the past for yours, both for mobile and my stationary internet access. If they decide to go rogue and block stuff without an opt-in, I'll immediately switch to T-Mobile which offers the same bandwidth and rates, alas without the roaming option.

The roaming option I have on my grandfathered contracts allows me to use my phone and the stationary router in Italy, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Hongkong just as if I were at home, i.e. no data cap or roaming charges.

Re:network neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not, in any way, using someone else's bandwidth "for free". They pay for the bandwidth through their hosting providers, and you pay for the bandwidth to retrieve the page you asked for, ads and all. Don't want the ads, don't request the page.

Re:network neutrality?

[Darinbob]

They are delivering exactly the content that the users want, and delivering all of that content without prioritizing it. It's neutral. The only change is that they're blocking some bad actors who are intruding into the customer's bandwidth and providing unwanted content and malware. If this violates network neutrality then it would mean that any spam filtering also violates network neutrality, or any anti-virus scanner.

Net neutrality is about point to point neutrality, not about the third parties injecting unwanted content along the way that cuts into their bandwidth allowance.

If advertisers feel that they must get out to all the viewers then the advertisiers should PAY for that privilege, the same as they do for print media ads. Relying on the user to pay for their distribution may be good business but it's not a business practice we should defend.

Re:network neutrality?

[Darinbob]

If you don't want the ads, use an ad blocker. This is not illegal, unethical, or immoral. When 50% of received content is advertising then this means 50% of that monthly ISP bill is going to fund the advertisement delivery infrastructure, that is what is immoral in my view.

If companies don't want their ads blocked then they need to stop partnering with scum and find reputable advertisers who don't abuse the customers. Ad blocking wouldn't exist if we didn't need to use it in self defense.

Re:network neutrality?

[ooloorie]

Net neutrality is about point to point neutrality, not about the third parties injecting unwanted content along the way that cuts into their bandwidth allowance.

You make it sound like some third party injects its ads against everybody's will, but that's bullshit. The ads are there because the content providers (newspapers, gaming companies, etc.) put them there in order to get a revenue stream. The ads pay for the content, in lieu of actual money.

They are delivering exactly the content that the users want, and delivering all of that content without prioritizing it.

How do you know the users don't want the ads? I mean, they may or may not want the ads per se, but they probably want the content that the ads pay for. And if they don't want the ads, they shouldn't consume the content either.

the advertisiers should PAY for that privilege, the same as they do for print media ads

The advertisers do pay for that privilege, namely to the content providers that allow those ads on their web pages. The content providers then use that money to pay for their costs while delivering free content to you.

Simple Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

I use uBlock Origin and subscribe to the Anti-Adblock Killer list. Wired, Forbes, etc. -- can read them all.

Re:Simple Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they still use a paywall that can be easily bypassed.

Poooopcorn!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems AdblockPlus gave some others some interesting ideas.

I got myself an XXL popcorn bag while I watch carriers and pervertisers eke it out. Best if they (by mistake) knock each other out, but I fear they'll end up colluding (and buying themselves some regulation) to better gouge us all. Free market working at its best!

(No, *my* phone doesn't show ads (yet), it's a 1990's era dumbphone with a "natural" ad filter. But wait until law forces one to have some "apps" because otherwise you can't talk to IRS or what).

Add's Are People Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Add's have a right to free speech just like the rest of us companies and hoo-mans.

I hope net neutrality laws nip this in the booty soon.

Re:Add's Are People Too

[stooo]

Yeah, and we have the right to ignore them. We use that right :))
Besides, 99,99% of internet ad companies are malware distributing pools, and 2/3 of the "clicks" they register are fake clicks by their customers.
So they better go die, and be replaced by a more respectful model.
http://communities-dominate.bl...

Skeptic side of me...

[ZiakII]

Skeptic side of me just thinks this is a way to get a piece of the advertising pie. You got some nice ads would be a shame if anything happened to them? *sticks out hand*

Bad idea

[GrandCow]

If 10% of the people run adblockers, most sites just put up a spot asking people to please turn off their ad-blocker.

If 100% of the people have ads blocked, the site needs to find another way to monetize; like charging for access.

I LIKE that old people and computer illiterates allow ads to be shown, it keeps me below the radar.

Re:Bad idea

[Maritz]

Agreed. Ads are fucking great, long as it's someone else sitting through them.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You ignorant shit GrandCow.

Us "old people" are far from computer illiterate. We were programming in assembler before you were born. Many of us created the infrastructure you now use everyday without any understanding of how it works on your part.

Me, I don't block adds. But then again I don't habitually visit any sites that have tons of annoying adds either. If they want to be really annoying I just stay away.

 

Re:Bad idea

[GrandCow]

You know exactly the kind of person I'm talking about when I say old people; while you personally may be savvy enough to use one if you wanted, by far the older population as a whole is ignorant about adblockers. There's no reason to be an ass just for the sake of being an ass.

Re:Bad idea

[FunkSoulBrother]

Besides being deliberately obtuse, you literally made his point my stating that you were an old person, and that you don't block ads. Whether out of ignorance or kind heart, you're allowing him to fly under the radar.

Re:Bad idea

[stooo]

>> If 100% of the people have ads blocked, the site needs to find another way to monetize
Bullshit.
If 30-40% of users have adblockers, the ad networks will swich to an "acceptable ad" policy which respects users, and web sites will earn more with less ads.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You present no logic to support your argument. If 30-40% of users have adblockers, only the media conglomerates will survive and independent media will be crushed, and you'll bitch about there not being anything worth reading on the internet after you selfishly killed it. How about if you don't like ads, you don't go to sites that are ad supported.

See, if you gut revenue, the smaller publishers will collapse. The bigger publishers have reserves to survive longer, and have more resources to defeat your adblockers. Once the small publishers are gone, you'll have only those who are paid to be pushing an agenda, and those big publishers (that are also pushing an agenda). This is a much, much worse situation. The advertisers aren't going anywhere because the demand for advertisements isn't going away. Instead, they're going to get in bed deeper with the big publishers. This is worse in every imaginable way.

Re:Bad idea

[Darinbob]

Not when those old people are family complaining about how slow the internet has gotten. I install ad blockers for them. Speeds up the internet and I spend less time dealing scrubbing out the malware.

Re:Bad idea

[Darinbob]

I think you're overreaching here. The advertising industry is probably incapable of respecting users.

Re:Bad idea

[stooo]

I don't think so.
There are rules for acceptable ads, which will not be blocked.
for example : https://adblockplus.org/en/acc...
There are ad companies and publishers who follow that rules. The other ones will die.

Re:Bad idea

[stooo]

There are only two options : Adapt or die.
The time where you could serve bad sites full of crap video ads who serve malware to users is up.
Adblock now doubles roughly every two years.
That means you have 2-3 years to adapt, or you'll be dead in 4 years.
Most of these users use responsible adblocking.
Of course, the small ad companies must react a bit faster, and some have already made the switch.

Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Bearhouse]

My entire family switched to "3" for both mobile and home use a while ago.
We saved a ton of money and everything works as advertised; much better than older rivals for less money.
The kit they bundle with the home line is impressive and very geek-friendly too...

This from the article:

"The release indicates that the ad-blocking will not be absolute and non-negotiable, and lays out three goals for the transition: that Three’s customers should not pay data charges to receive adverts, the cost of which should instead be borne by the advertiser; that customers need to be protected from mobile ads which mine and exploit customer data without their consent or awareness; that customers should be protected from ‘excessive, intrusive, unwanted or irrelevant adverts’.

A spokesman for Three says ‘Irrelevant and excessive mobile ads annoy customers and affect their overall network experience. We don’t believe customers should have to pay for data usage driven by mobile ads. The industry has to work together to give customers mobile ads they want and benefit from.’"

Well, I agree totally! Some sites, (including /.) are almost unusable when browsed on a mobile with a slow connection.

Re:Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some sites are almost unusable when browsed from a desktop with broadband.

Re:Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's hilarious is that they've duped you into shifting the issue.

It's 2016. They're absolutely correct when they say customers should not have to "pay" for usage driven by ads.. However, if the carrier's data packages are so small that a handful of images are going to dig into your pockets, the fault is more with them than the ads. Advertising absolutely needs reform, but this is not THEIR fight; their job is to simply pass bits.

Re:Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three also offers limited-hours plans, which means waiting for ADs costs money.

Finite mobile bandwidth will always be a problem.

Re:Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Darinbob]

No the ISP fight is how to get users and retain them. Providing better service means more revenue. Blocking ads is one way of providing better service.

These are not a "handful" of images. There are many web sites where the ads constitute the majority of the data. Streaming video is probably the biggest exception where the data is larger than the advertising. If I did not block ads then mail service would present more bytes of advertising then bytes of email (and I PAY for the service, it's not a free).

Re:Seems pretty reasonable to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying the user is no longer in control of their navigation habits?
They are outright forced to go to these sites where 'ads constitute the majority of the data', and that's why the carrier needs to get involved?

Because that's the only way this behavior is acceptable.

Net neutrality cuts both ways...

[Bugler412]

Illegal under net neutrality for a network provider to do this, at least in the US. Blocking at the client level or private network gateway/proxy is the only real legal approach there. However, I definitely like that these guys are pressing the right principals against the abusive advertisers

I got 99% problems...

[grahamtriggs]

The Shine stats show that 99% of the traffic consists of ads, not content. How realistic / consistent that is is up for debate, but clearly when advertisers are intent on pushing intrusive, bandwidth hungry auto-playing videos, it's clearly going to have a major impact on bandwidth.

Every mobile provider really should be fighting back against that, as it has a massive impact on mobile performance, for no user benefit (apart from paying for the content).

If content providers want to deliver to a mobile space, and advertisers want to reach a mobile audience, then they should work together with the mobile industry on better solutions - not simply burden users and networks with a bad experience.

Getting pushed offline

[Anonymous Coward]

As I value my time and privacy more, I find online "life" less fulfilling. Forbes wants me to unblock annoying and potentially malicious ads? Ok, I don't need forbes ever again. Amazon, ebay, facebook? Ok, I never liked facebook anyway, but I am increasingly avoiding online shopping. I want to find what I am looking for, not be distracted by ads and tracked where my mouse points every millisecond. It is aggressive and over-reaching, and as these bad actors "up their game" my only recourse is not participate at all. They don't need me specifically, but they do need users. Without any users they cannot exist. So long spyers, I'm going outdoors. Without a "smart" phone to track my every move...

Blocking content

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

What happened to net neutrality?

No APK

[penguinoid]

In case anyone was wondering why this story isn't littered with hosts files spam, Whipslash said he got rid of APK. I guess now we'll see how that went, as this story would have drawn him out for sure.

Re:No APK

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want me to fill in for "the lord of HOSTS" I can copy/paste his bullshit, if you'd like?

Re:No APK

[FunkSoulBrother]

Lets not go out of our way to draw him out. I'm convinced something of substance has been done, but he's still going to leak in around the edges.

Re:No APK

[amicusNYCL]

Additional filters have been added. His posts are pretty easy to spot, even for a computer (at least when he's behaving like he normally does). Sure, he can act like a normal human and probably still post, but he's shown difficulty in the past being able to behave in a rational manner.

Re:No APK

[Anonymous Coward]

They got rid of him by adding those to the spam filter

Re:No APK

[imidan]

It's like we've been living for years with someone who followed us around, constantly screaming gibberish into our ears, and he's suddenly gone. It's a bit disorienting at first, but I'm sure we'll get used to it.

Pay for bandwidth?

[PPH]

Great! But how could I, as a customer of Three, get a piece of this deal? Want to shovel adware across the carrier's network? Fine. Pay for the privilege. But if you want to consume my devices CPU, battery and storage resources, why am I not also getting a piece of the action?

Re:Pay for bandwidth?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, jackass. You're getting "Free" content whe the advertisers pay the publishers to create free content.

Ads are malware these days.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2016/02/dont-spam-dont-spy-ask-permission-and-satisfy-musings-on-media-advertising-and-big-data.html

Bullshit

[stooo]

>> sites will decide to simply block users
That won't happen.
There's a policy for acceptable ads, defined by consensus together with adblockers and users.
The rules are set. Either malware ad companies conform to that, or they'll die.
And seems that they'll die sooner than they think, since there is some generic blocking from ISPs

Re:Bullshit

[DF5JT]

Rules in the advertising space?

What have you smoked recently? Must have been really bad stuff.

Re:Bullshit

[stooo]

The rules are clear :
https://adblockplus.org/en/acc...
Ad companies who do not want to change will die. That's fact.

Shine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of Shine before. Anyone know anything about them? Are they doing anything special like proxying an dfiltering, DNS blacklisting, or are they just using that cocksucker APK's shit?

Re:Shine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta admire APK making you all look like effete techno wannabes you all are here today http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... so if anybody's sucking cock here it's all of /. sucking apk's, with you validating his approach mentioning it. He's running rings around your feeble ineffective attempts at stopping him post and has for years on hosts files doing more with less on far more levels than any single other so called solution does for far less with all of you unable to validly technically prove him wrong. The greatest proof he has is the fact you have to try to block him. That's the best you've got against truths he posts you advertisers and webmaster wallies have and we all know it. It's not much. He makes you look like fools and amateurs. You can't prove him validly technically wrong on hosts superiority to other methods on tons of levels and you certainly can't stop him posting either. It must be so embarassing for you all, the "big brains" of SLASHDOUCHE hahahahahaha!

Way to shoot yourself in the foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook, Google, Youtube, what reason do they have to let you use their services?
Block the ads, and watch the sites block the users, otherwise you can them with actual money. Personally, I'd have no issue with ads being blocked and seeing the internet go to a pay to play model, but I doubt that I'm in the majority.

The building contractor ban the visitor

[amyreyna]

It is the same when a contractor build a mall building, provide the electricity, water etc. Then the tenant come to rent space, after the tenant pay for the contractor services, the contractor choose who the visitor that can come and cannot come to the tenant's place. I never meet something like that in many different countries. It seem three wants to start a new way of business

You can't prove me wrong on hosts so... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

NO POINT in mentioning them - they're TRULY the "Superior Warrior" in protection & added speed + reliability online with me proving that (with all of YOUR INCOMPETENT BLUNDERS attempting to attack me on them helping too, of course - giving credit where it's due) so, here goes: "Savoir-Faire is EVERYWHERE" & so am I - & you UTTER DOLT WANNABES? Can't stop me on your BEST day (& you know it).

So what's that YOU said "GotHisAssWhippedSlash" by yours truly said? Ah, yes another incompetent bigmouthed blunder vs. me-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* Ask him yourself - he's gone "StRaNgeLy" silent on us today as usual when I approach him - muting him!

(THAT'S SINCE HE'S "EATING HIS WORDS", lol - at least NOW he's learned MANNERS NOT TALKING WITH HIS MOUTH FULL OF HIS WORDS HE HAS TO EAT... again, vs. "yours truly", the ONE & ONLY, unstoppable force online!)

APK

P.S.=> Let's see now - he's tried htaccess "boxing me in" as you can see to NO avail... & limiting my postings, again to NO avail (11++ today already) - & all that bigmouth LITTLE TIN GOD DICTATOR HAD TO DO was ask me POLITELY to leave - but NO, he had to "act the private playpen wannabe 'GOD'" trying to SHOW OFF to you all, much to his dismay which this proves all the moreso now... so when WILL the rest of you fools realize 1 thing: YOU ARE NOT IN MY LEAGUE IN THE ART & SCIENCE OF COMPUTING? apk

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.start64.com/index.p...

* Accept NO substitutes...

APK

P.S.=> Does more for speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY other SINGLE "so-called -solution'" out there, bar-none, for less using what you already natively have - unlike "AlmostALLAdsBlocked", UBlock, Ghostery etc. it's not detectable & blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ + it uses FAR LESS RESOURCES yet does far more (especially vs. DNS security issues)... apk