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.

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.

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.

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: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.