
France’s second-largest ISP deploys ad blocking via firmware update - zoowar
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/frances-second-largest-isp-deploys-ad-blocking-via-firmware-update/
======
fab13n
Free.fr has been trying for years to force big content providers, and
especially Google, to participate in ISPs' infrastructure costs. This move is
most likely a way to dry up AdSense revenue, hoping that Google will cave in.

Free.fr, and beyond the company its boss Xavier Niel, has a consistent track
record of pissing of big players in established markets. Niel made his wealth
with Minitel, including sex and dating sites, then consistently disrupted
networking markets with Free.fr:

* they first sold dialup connection for the cost of a local communications, without ads;

* they established the price of unlimited ADSL around €30/month;

* they introduced TV over IP and free phone calls over IP through the freebox (the ADSL router that comes with a free.fr subscription)

* they started a bandwidth race, offering tens of MB/s when historic operators were stuck at 512KB/s.

* they slashed mobile phone prices: no subsidized phones, no contract, but unlimited calls and data (bandwitdth capped beyond 3GB/month) for less than 20€/month.

Their whole business model has always been about pissing off fat cats, big
time. They're trying their luck against Google.

~~~
electromagnetic
Just wait until Google, Microsoft and Yahoo all block Free.fr IP blocks until
they cut this out.

It's one thing to piss off your competition, but pissing off the people who
supply _the only reason_ why you have customers is kind of stupid. Sorry, but
if I couldn't get Google I'm switching ISPs tomorrow.

~~~
mtgx
It also looks like Google and a lot of other people can and should sue them.
From the featured comment on Ars, it seems they are blocking everyone's news
sites, _except_ for his own.

~~~
tonfa
Google analytics is also blocked, it's not just ads.

~~~
jeromeflipo
Indeed: [http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24672-free-ne-bloque-pas-
qu...](http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24672-free-ne-bloque-pas-que-la-
publicite.html)

------
falcolas
I have a hard time empathizing with the ad companies in this case.

I'd rather pay money for many of these services, but I'm rarely given the
option. In the meantime, my browsing is regularly interrupted by ads that I
have to click through, ads I have to wait through, ads that pop up and block
what I was trying to read, and ads that play noises I don't want to hear.

I think it is fast becoming time where ads as a source of revenue for a site
is going away; it's time for people to find better ways to monitize the
content they're publishing.

~~~
borlak
Maybe you'd be willing to empathize with me, then? :) The business I work for
lives off ads, and is actually a good business and supplies a lot of fun to
millions of people a day. And as far as paying customers, most of our userbase
are kids, so that's not going to work very well.

Also we are a global site and get a good deal of traffic from overseas, so
this French ISP is actually affecting our business (it's not going to get
anyone laid off though).

Just something to think about -- the internet is working relatively smoothly
as it is. Playing around with the basics like this will have more effect than
you may realize.

~~~
falcolas
Our definitions of "smoothly" vary a bit.

If I speak as a consumer, then it's not very smooth when I want to read an
article and can't, due to the in-line words which pop up intrusive ads when
your mouse comes anywhere near them. I can't hardly watch a 30 second video
without spending another 30 seconds to 2 and 1/2 minutes watching ads. It
actively annoys me that Amazon has started serving ads on their homepage. I've
ended up going to other retailers to purchase things on the principal.

As someone working (indirectly) for companies that make revenue off of ads,
I've noticed that there's always that nagging fear in the back of their minds
about Google cutting them off with no recourse. Of loosing customers when a
new ad in the rotation pisses of parents due to the scantily clad nature of
the characters in the ad. Of loosing customers due to poor performance of ads
or conflicting javascript.

It is always very unfortunate when people get laid off. However, to have to
lay people off _just because someone doesn't download specific bytes from the
internet_ signals a broken system to me.

------
venomsnake
That is disgusting. ISP have no job of interfering with any traffic to the end
user. Their role is to be just dumb pipes that provide bandwidth.

They should not inspect or monitor their users traffic for any reason short of
court order.

~~~
samarudge
It's not the ISP, it's the router doing the blocking. The ISP is still just
being an ISP. This is, from a technical standpoint, no different to
configuring a proxy/filtering server yourself. Going off what the articles
have said, the ISP themselves are not doing any filtering or monitoring it's
all happening on the router.

~~~
venomsnake
It is turned on by default on a router that the ISP is capable of upgrading
(which is scary enough) and that the ISP forcefully upgrade without notifying
the customers.

If the title was - French ISP upgrade routers to block porn it would have been
an uproar. It is the same.

So the ISP is not being just and ISP it is assuming the role of a gatekeeper
with a device on which they have root access.

~~~
mathieuh
Is it that rare for it to be possible for ISPs to update their provided
routers? My ISP (O2) has the ability to forcefully update firmware at any
time.

~~~
justincormack
It is fairly common for routers to be backdoored like this. Best get your
own... or disable it if you feel like it (the O2 one has a telnet interface
with available password that can control stuff not on the web interface).

------
bambax
I setup a new router today (ASUS RT-N66u) with TomatoUSB; it lets one run
scripts and I installed a script that does ad-blocking on everything / all
devices.

I found the script here [http://www.shadowandy.net/2012/11/adblocking-with-
tomatousb-...](http://www.shadowandy.net/2012/11/adblocking-with-tomatousb-
router-ad-free-internet-for-all-your-devices.htm)

It seems to be working pretty well so far.

~~~
clicks
Can you comment on how this technique is better than simply having AdBlock
extensions in browsers? They seem pretty reliable to me. But maybe there's an
advantage to having adblocking at router level? If so, please explain.

~~~
freehunter
One that I can imagine is this works on all devices and all browsers
regardless of any external factors. For example, is it possible to install an
AdBlocker on Safari Mobile? I know it's not on my Windows Phone. Having to
install an extension on every device, every browser, every computer gets
tiring.

Another bonus is when people visit, ads are blocked for them as well.

~~~
clicks
So, simply put: convenience. Plus, some small saving on computational
resources on the browser device.

------
mwsherman
This serves as a good example of how net neutrality rules would impinge users’
rights and give big(ger) business an advantage.

This is not a net-neutral move by the Free.fr. Clearly some content is being
treated differently than other content, based on source.

However, I think it’s up to users (and by extension, the services they
purchase) to decide how to handle web content. Users might or might not like
this particular move, who knows. But it’s up to them to keep using the ISP, or
to change the setting in the router.

Under net neutrality law, should it exist, the ISP’s move would be illegal,
no? Which means that Google uses regulation to ensure delivery of its product.
Incumbency protection.

In fact, look for Google to posit exactly this net neutrality claim. My
preference is that Free.fr and Google fight for your affections.

~~~
mikeash
My preference would be that my ISP not interfere with my traffic without my
consent. It baffles me to find any other opinion expressed here.

~~~
mpyne
Yeah, I was going to complain that this is really something that the user
needs to be able to disable or otherwise opt out of. As it stands there's
content filtering going on outside of user control which isn't a good thing at
all (seriously, there's probably less controls on free.fr than the local
police station)

~~~
mikeash
The user can disable it, but screwing with the user's traffic shouldn't be the
default in the first place.

------
freehunter
Working in information security, I spent a good amount of time tracking down
malware infections on our company's machines. While most of them are from
email attachments, a good number of them source from ad servers that have been
hijacked to serve malicious content.

I see a comment on Ars that says ad-based malware is overblown as a concern,
and let me assure you it is not. Hijacked ad servers are an incredibly
effective way to spread your malware across many unsuspecting users. If this
was overblown, you wouldn't see so many people working so hard to find new
browser 0-day exploits.

------
jug6ernaut
I cant see this being a good thing for the internet industry. A lot of
websites rely on advertising to keep their websites running.

Sure users can already do this, but that has been limited to a very small
subset of users, and was always user choice. Automatically doing it for
everyone through that isp is crazy.

I wonder how this could relate to censorship, first ads, what next? Just a
thought...

~~~
doe88
I don't see the problem, it's just a switch in the settings, you can turn it
off in one click.

~~~
babebridou
The problem is that an ISP is altering legitimate content that it's supposed
to serve to their customer by contract, that they took this decision
unilaterally without suggesting a change in the contract, that the feature is
opt-out, that this unilateral decision will reduce by ~10% the global revenue
that companies can make from advertising to French internet users in 2013.

This is not a matter of being pro or anti adblocking, but rather about
realizing how far the consequences of a default value can reach.

~~~
ihsw
The modem is rented out by the ISP and it is their property -- this is not a
clause in the contract that you signed. If it offends you then install your
own modem.

~~~
tonfa
Sure let's filter also porn by default, and anything that could be offending,
or that might look like copyright infringement.

I think there are legitimate questions: at which point would it become not
acceptable for you? who decides what is blocked? should it be enabled by
default?

Also if the ISP is in the business of "editorializing" what the user sees,
maybe it becomes actually responsible for the content (no safe harbor). That
also seems like a dangerous game for them.

------
frozenport
I fear the response from advertisers, which will trigger a technology war that
will eat endless computer cycles with complicated ad-content delivery
networks.

An easy solution is to equate blocking AdSense with blocking Google.com. I am
not sure why Google hasn't already taken this step.

------
mnml_
same story posted on <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003525>

------
danso
Doesn't this violate the spirit (if not the letter) of net-neutrality
principles?

