

Ad Blocking Raises Alarm Among Firms Like Google - cremnob
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/technology/ad-blocking-raises-alarm-among-firms-like-google.html?ref=global-home

======
FreeKill
I know this is a bit off topic, but I find Ad-Blocking to be an interesting
problem. On the one hand, it's a person's choice and anyone blocking ads was
likely not to click on them anyway. At the same time though, it's clear that
if Ad-Blocking were to go truly mainstream, especially if ISPs started to
block ads themselves, a major portion of the internet as it stands today would
be financially unsustainable, especially when it comes to content sites. Even
my mom (non-tech savvy in any way) asked me if there was a way to block the
ads on Google the other day. She didn't like how they had started to add
pictures for products but all the products were just ads for all the more
expensive ones when she could find better deals elsewhere. Her exact quote was
"Why do I have to scroll past all these ads to find the better deals down
below..."

I think outside of ISP issues like those discussed in the article, sites like
Google are actually hastening the average users desire to ad block. I think
it's possible that with the addition of things like the product ads for a
product search and the fact that Google is the default jump off site for many
people, they could be exacerbating the ad fatigue of their own users. I bet
Google will have a tough time finding a sympathetic ear if Ad-Blocking goes
more mainstream...

At the same time though, I despise the ISPs that take user money and then
complain that Google should also pay before they deliver me what I paid for.
That's just ridiculous, and I hope Net neutrality can get in place before it's
more mainstream of a practice.

~~~
gasull
> _if Ad-Blocking were to go truly mainstream, especially if ISPs started to
> block ads themselves, a major portion of the internet as it stands today
> would be financially unsustainable, especially when it comes to content
> sites._

It your business model doesn't work anymore, you have to move on. That's what
the music and movie industry should learn. Maybe Google will have to learn it
too. The NYT paywall is working pretty well.

Maybe you're worrying that paywalls will be raised everywhere. I don't think
so. There will always be free content. Also, maybe we need some P2P protocol
instead of HTTP, so content can be delivered for cheap.

~~~
FreeKill
Agreed, I did say "as it stands today." Sites would adapt to the new reality
and those who didn't would get buried.

I do think though that people who adblock now do so cause it's relatively
fringe and they feel like they are a drop in the bucket and not harmful to the
site. If it was suddenly mainstream, I think a lot of folks would realize the
old ads weren't so bad as the new paradigm and would opt for ads over
paywalls.

~~~
belorn
Contrary, I rather have paywalls.

When data is being sent to my device, I want to be allowed to decide if it is
shown on the screen. If executable code is sent to the computer, I want to
decide if it will run. If code design to track and monitor my is being sent to
my computer, I want to decide if it will be running or blocked.

When people have ownership of their device with the option to block ads,
people will block ads. The only way to enforce ad-viewing is to take away that
ownership. In that world, I rather take paywalls.

------
antoncohen
Wow, Free sounds pretty amazing, other than the whole anti-net neutrality and
auto ad-blocking thing. They are the largest native IPv6 ISP in the world and
the largest IPTV provider in the world.

Free includes the Freebox Server (for free), which features:

    
    
        ADSL modem, router, WiFi
        NAS (250GB)
        External HDD support
        DVR
        Supports a lot of media formats, including mkv
        IPTV to any computer on the network (including VLC on Linux is seems)
        Time Machine and AirPlay compatible
        BitTorrent (seriously, an ISP that includes BT on their router)
        VoIP (SIP) server/proxy with support for:
            Wired RJ11 phone
            Built-in cordless base station (DECT)
            Smartphone or computer VoIP
            Free calling to phones in France, including mobile
            Free SMS/MMS in France
    

Then there is the Freebox Player (which connects to a TV) that adds:

    
    
        Blu-ray/DVD player
        VLC Player for playing nearly any media type
        Plays media from Freebox Server, networked computer, or USB drive
        Web and email on the TV
        Games, with includes gamepad
        RF remote, and phone/tablet control apps
    

You get all of that, internet, TV, and phone, for 35 EUR/month.

Dare I say, maybe they should charge their customers more, and not blame
Google.

BTW, the ad-blocking will be disabled on Monday
(<http://www.freebox-v6.fr/index.php>). The ad-blocking is done by the Freebox
Server (which is the home router). Open source code is here:
<http://floss.freebox.fr/>

~~~
tonfa
It's a shame that they didn't manage to bring an amazing experience from this
set top box. Most of their revolutionary features (apps, games, video
broadcasting, etc.) haven't had any success, maybe because polish had been
lacking.

Or maybe they should have partnered with other (e.g. skype for video
conferencing, google for apps, etc.).

Edit: also worth mentioning that Free makes a 40% margin (at least in the adsl
business), so it's not like they are not already a very profitable business.
The issue is that they might like Google-like revenue, getting payed for
eyeball is one way.

------
sharkweek
I have never used an ad blocking service before as my general stance is that
if it helps subsidize content presentation, I think it's perfectly fair for
the provider to serve ads.

To be honest, I normally pay them no mind in the first place, which might be
overall more harmful.

~~~
stephen_g
I don't think Adblock is really any worse than fast-forwarding past ads on my
PVR (especially having never once clicked on an ad on the internet).

But an ISP blocking ads is very dodgy... An ISP tampering with web pages at
all is wrong - I think an their job is to deliver only, and _exactly_ what the
web server gives them to the person who requested it, who is then free to
choose what part of the page they see. All the more reason for more web sites
to use SSL/TLS.

~~~
dmsinger
When you skip a commercial on your DVR that ad has already been paid for. That
content provider has been paid.

When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and
the content provider is not being paid (if CPM).

They're very different in terms of money-flow. It doesn't mean devaluing an
advertiser is better, but they're two different outcomes, even if it just
means "no ads" to user/viewer.

~~~
chii
> When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and
> the content provider is not being paid (if CPM).

it depends on how the ad is actually served, but i would assume that a smarter
adblocking tool would "fake" the ad request, so that an ad provider would not
be able to tell the difference between a user seeing the impression or not.

------
cletus
This double dipping by ISPs annoys the hell out of me. Who should pay for
bandwidth: the ISPs or content producers? How about--oh I don't know--the
ISPs' _customers_ who are _already_ paying for bandwidth?

If there is any compelling argument for net neutrality it's this: don't let
regional monopolies decide what sites their customers can access based on what
kickbacks the ISP receives.

Widespread opt-out ad blocking will likely end in content producers blocking
offending ISPs.

As for the particular case mentioned (YouTube bandwidth for Free) I would like
to know if the take advantage of the edge caching available.

All in a this reads as a pro-ISP fluff piece.

~~~
rogerbinns
I'm in favour of a more market based solution. If an ISP can show that there
is meaningful competition for a customer then they can do whatever they want
right up to charging more for access to particular content/services. This will
encourage experimentation with pricing and access and would be very helpful.

But where there is no meaningful competition the ISP does not get to pick
winners and losers - they should be a dumb pipe that does not discriminate.

Of course there isn't meaningful competition in most of the US.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>If an ISP can show that there is meaningful competition for a customer then
they can do whatever they want right up to charging more for access to
particular content/services.

This would be one thing if you're talking about them charging their own
customers for such things. Though the idea that any ISP that actually tried
this in a competitive market would still have any customers left by the end of
the week seems mighty suspicious.

But there is another point if we're talking about peering. Each consumer-level
ISP has a hard monopoly over its own customers. There is no competition for
access to those customers. If you want to reach them all, you (or your network
provider) has got to come to terms with each and every one of those ISPs. And
the only way you have any leverage is if you're a big fish whose services are
too important for the ISP not to provide its customers high speed access to.

The little fish need network neutrality or they're screwed. Regional
competition between ISPs wouldn't even fix it if we had any plausible way to
bring it about.

~~~
rogerbinns
> Though the idea that any ISP that actually tried this in a competitive
> market would still have any customers left by the end of the week seems
> mighty suspicious.

I'm fine with letting them try because meaningful competition means consumers
can go elsewhere. I hope there are some interesting business models to
discover such as ISP side security filtering, ISP prioritisation of traffic,
cheaper prices for consumer concessions, allowing content providers to pay for
priority etc.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Two things. First, I'm as up for a theoretical discussion as the next guy, but
if we're going to have a serious conversation about what would happen if the
regional market for internet service was highly competitive, shouldn't we have
some kind of at least theoretical non-ridiculous mechanism of actually
achieving that? Because "run twelve or more redundant sets of wires to every
home" fails the non-ridiculousness bar, and "continue to have only one or two
wires" fails the "highly competitive" test, so where does that leave us?

Second, you're still not solving the problem of ISPs having monopolies over
their own customers. We don't want ISPs with customer block monopolies
charging content providers for prioritization -- they'll charge monopoly
prices and suck every ounce of margin they can out of the already-struggling
content production business. Even if we had competition between ISPs at the
regional level, they would each still have a monopoly over their customers
from the perspective of content distributors.

------
SoftwareMaven
So rather than charge its customers what they really cost the business, this
ISP wants somebody else to fund them? I want telemarketers to pay my phone
bill, since they use it the most, anyway.

------
ChuckMcM
I think these sorts of things will drive the debate about value forward which
is a good thing. Clearly ISPs that block advertisements will end up with their
customers unable to access advertising supported services. Then people will
stop using the ISP because they can't use the services they want to use.

Information has never been free, it has been over charged for, but its
existence is the result of money flowing into the information producer. No
money, no information. Not everyone 'gets' that yet, but things like the NYT
Paywall are demonstrating that there are actual stable markets for
information.

Of course there is no place you can sit down and talk to the whole world about
this sort of thing, so we end up with these kinds of events, and their
response, which shape the future. Fun times.

------
r0s
Am I taking this too far out of context, or is this abhorrent journalism?:

> Google, have based their entire business models on providing free content to
> consumers by festooning Web pages with paid advertisements

That's more than a little misleading.

------
betterunix
If websites are worried, why not just use TLS, which should prevent this sort
of thing? This is not ABP, it is just an ISP being naughty (albeit in a way
that its customers probably like).

~~~
gojomo
My impression from the article is that the ad-blocking is done at the client,
when they use the ISP's standard software install. So TLS/HTTPS won't help.

~~~
chii
in this day and age, requiring installation of software from the ISP to get
online is very suspicious, and should be frowned up on.

I would explain to a non-technical person by analogy - imagine the telco
needed you to use _their_ particular telephone when you make/recieve calls.

~~~
qbrass
It shouldn't be hard to imagine for a lot of people who lived before the mid
80's.

The Bell monopoly required you to not only use their handsets, you usually had
to lease the phone from them.

------
lessnonymous
Doesn't ISPs making a decision between two different pieces of traffic fall
under Net Neutrality?

Just because people don't generally like the ads, Free is deciding which
content gets through its system. If it's going to do this, then why can't it
decide not to allow particular news through because 'the news provider should
pay for the bandwidth'?

------
corporalagumbo
Any way sites could refuse to serve content to Free's customers?

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, but that way you're punishing the users, not Free.

Simply block their IP ranges in your firewall.

~~~
psbp
I don't think content providers are interested in providing services for users
who won't pay.

------
jacques_chester
My "big" startup project is tangentially related to this problem.

That is: users _hate_ ads. But someone has to pay for all this stuff.

The obvious model -- user pays -- has never really worked. There's been lots
of variations on micropayments but so far they've all sucked.

Naturally I am taking no account of the horrendous base rates in this area and
am crawling ahead anyhow.

~~~
duey
> That is: users hate ads. But someone has to pay for all this stuff.

Curious if this is actually the case. I certainly don't hate ads, except when
they are obnoxiously annoying but that is getting rare these days.

~~~
jacques_chester
It depends on the ad. Search-based ads are probably welcome.

Display ads, less so. It's an arms race between advertisers and readers.
Advertisers want a slice of a fixed supply of reader attention; readers
presumably want to read/watch whatever they came to the site for. It's a zero
sum game, so anything the advertiser gains is lost from the reader.

So readers develop countermeasures (ignoring ads in certain positions) and
advertisers counter-countermeasures (sound, movement, popovers) and so on it
goes in a continuous spiral.

The operator of Free can make the case that he is taking payment from users to
enter the contest on their side. That it saves him a bunch of bandwidth is
gravy.

~~~
chii
> It's an arms race between advertisers and readers. Advertisers want a slice
> of a fixed supply of reader attention; readers presumably want to read/watch
> whatever they came to the site for. It's a zero sum game, so anything the
> advertiser gains is lost from the reader.

interesting that you put it this way. Perhaps instead of ads that mimic
television ads on the internet, there should be new forms of advertising. The
internet is an interactive medium, and why should it copy TV?

If an advertiser made an addictive game that brands the product, people would
come willingly to play that game, and in the process, be exposed to the
branding message.

They could create ARG (altertnate reality game), which promotes word of mouth
advertising (see how well this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Bees>
did).

I think there is no place for traditional "one way" advertising on the
internet, because the internet isn't Tv.

------
latinohere
The customer is paying for their bandwith. Google is paying for their
bandwith. What more does this scum bag want? Fuck him.

Unfortunately the general public, and maybe even politicians, don't understand
this and believe the lie that google is freeloading.

------
OGinparadise
Slightly of topic but Google has brought a lot of it upon itself; for example
is near impossible to use without a lot of scrolling to avoid ads. I know
they're ads due to my daily work but "regular" people will probably not notice
them as ads due to almost identical background color and layout. Ads may be
relevant but there's more to it then relevancy (price for one.) Sneaky and
very bad long term.

