Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Love sees no species.
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.
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...
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
..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.
Networks VS Advertisers in a knife fight. Awesome.
Fuck 'em both I say.
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?
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?
I use uBlock Origin and subscribe to the Anti-Adblock Killer list. Wired, Forbes, etc. -- can read them all.
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*
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.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
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.
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
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.
What happened to net neutrality?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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?
Have gnu, will travel.
>> 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
aaaaaaa
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...
aaaaaaa
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