Mobile Giant Three Group To Block Online Advertising (thestack.com) 94
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.
It Works Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Bullshit (Score:2)
>> 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: (Score:2)
Rules in the advertising space?
What have you smoked recently? Must have been really bad stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
The rules are clear :
https://adblockplus.org/en/acc... [adblockplus.org]
Ad companies who do not want to change will die. That's fact.
Sounds great, in theory (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>> 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.
Users of those networks will be blocked (Score:1)
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...
Simple Remedy (Score:1)
I use uBlock Origin and subscribe to the Anti-Adblock Killer list. Wired, Forbes, etc. -- can read them all.
Internet providers blocking ads? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
How do you get raped on the internet?
Lawsuits in 3.. (Score:3, Insightful)
..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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Networks VS Advertisers (Score:2)
Fuck 'em both I say.
Re: (Score:2)
>>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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:network neutrality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically, no:
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.
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: (Score:2)
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 have no problem with you blocking
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, they are not. Europe has also adopted a principle of net neutrality.
So? Do you seriously think that US ISPs are not required to comply with court orders?
Of course there is: European ISPs and phone companies are no more (and no less) responsible for the contents of user generated traffic as Am
Re: (Score:2)
"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 rem
Re: (Score:2)
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 [europa.eu]. The rest is a bunch of delusions and straw men on your part.
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 (correc
Re: (Score:2)
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 injecti
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [blogs.com]
Skeptic side of me... (Score:2)
Bad idea (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
>> 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overreaching here. The advertising industry is probably incapable of respecting users.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so.
There are rules for acceptable ads, which will not be blocked.
for example : https://adblockplus.org/en/acc... [adblockplus.org]
There are ad companies and publishers who follow that rules. The other ones will die.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Seems pretty reasonable to me... (Score:2)
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 shou
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Net neutrality cuts both ways... (Score:2)
I got 99% problems... (Score:3)
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.
Blocking content (Score:1)
What happened to net neutrality?
No APK (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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?
The building contractor ban the visitor (Score:1)