

French ISP Removes Google Adsense From Websites - pioul
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcinpact.com%2Fnews%2F76474-free-ad-gate-reactions-s-enchainent-certains-se-dechainent.htm&act=url

======
negrit
Hey guys, french guy here. There is few things you actually need to know.
First the ISP Free has always been a game changer in France. First they
introduced the "triple-play/low cost internet" wich is TV + unlimited phone
call over 150 countries + high speed internet for under 30 euros Then they
started to be a mobile carrier and they broke de price with unlimited call
over 150 countries, unlimited text/media messages and unlimited internet for
15 euros.

And now they just setup a built-in adblock in their modem and enabled by
default.

But you also need to know that since several year Free is fighting against
Youtube(own by Google) because they basically wants Youtube to pay a fee for
all the bandwidth the users are "wasting" on youtube".

EDIT: I forget to tell you that he is also behind online.net wich is a very
big internet hosting company and back then he was the first to introduce low
cost dedicated server(<http://www.online.net/fr/serveur-dedie/dedibox-sc>).

He is also behind Kima Venture, a pretty good VC I guess.

And he recently launch an internet shcool: <http://www.eemi.com/> and is
planning to launch a computer science school.

~~~
chris_j
I never understood why ISPs think that bandwidth heavy sites ought to pay
them. Surely if a user is wasting bandwidth on sites like YouTube then the ISP
should ask the user to pay for that bandwidth. Why don't they do that?

~~~
bashtoni
Actually, to my mind there's a good case for sites like Youtube to ask for
money from the ISPs.

The ISPs users want connection to the Internet because they want great content
(cat videos on youtube and the like). If Google blocked free.fr users from
accessing Youtube, it's likely that many free.fr customers would go elsewhere,
to another ISP that can provide them with the cat videos they crave. And
Google need to pay for all the bandwidth these users eat up repeatedly
watching cat videos somehow.

------
rickmb
Alarmist bullshit headline.

From what I can figure out, this ISP merely provides a modem/router with a
built-in _optional_ adblocker.

I don't see anything wrong with that in particular, especially in the context
where virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of
cross-site user tracking without explicit permission.

It's just one more additional security/privacy feature on a consumer router to
help ordinary users protect themselves.

~~~
vhf
See, the ISP remotely upgraded all routers, activating the adblocker by
default. You say "optional", but I'm not even sure there is an "opt-out".

Anyway, don't trust google translation. I found some info in english :
[http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-
al...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-all-web-
advertising) [http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-
add...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-adds-ad-
blocker-to-dsl-modems-freebox)

~~~
rickmb
It is definitely optional: <http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949>
(even with my limited French I find the original text less confusing than
google translate, ).

But yes, the fact that it's on by default is questionable.

However, most ISP-supplied consumer routers have firewall rules on by default,
for very good reasons. Although I personally think this one should be opt-in,
on by default is not necessarily evil in this particular use case.

Besides being a bit ham-fisted, there's nothing inherently wrong with an ISP
offering filters against malicious content.

Also, with the user-accessible opt-out, it would even be legal under the
Netherlands' much praised Net Neutrality law. Unlike most of these alarmist
headlines, the ISP is not blocking anything.

~~~
bloubi
Most ads are not malicious content at all. Wake up, the web has changed in 15
years. And like it or not, the whole web economy is based on advertising. Do
you prefer to be charged 5 cents for every query on Google?

~~~
anonymouz
Anything that tracks me without my permission it is malicious. I view the web
the way I want - and that includes using AdBlock, NoScript and RequestPolicy.

If it happens to be that enough people share that preference with me to make
the current ad-ridden web unprofitable for many sites, well, then so be it. In
that case a new model will appear in due time.

~~~
mtgx
So use Adblock then. That's your choice. But don't turn it on by default for
everyone. What if every ISP in the world decided to block all ads by default
within 5 years. How many Internet businesses it would kill? Most of them?

This is why I never liked IE's DNT on by default solution either, which
besides being mostly pointless, and making it even more pointless by
activating it for everyone and making advertisers not even consider it, I
think it's a really bad idea to get gatekeepers like these (ISP's, browser
vendors, etc) to block ads for everyone by default - all ads.

Imagine if cable companies blocked and skipped all TV ads by default. There
would literally be a revolution from the networks.

I'm pretty sure Google can win a lawsuit against this ISP if they sue them,
and they should. However, France is also pretty weird about Internet stuff.
They forced Google to offer paid Maps instead of free before, and other such
silly backwards things.

~~~
kvb
DNT doesn't block ads, it prevents tracking (ideally). Other ad-supported
businesses (e.g. most TV in the US) seem to get by fine without needing
tracking cookies.

~~~
bloubi
You mean, by spamming you every ten minutes with random ads between crappy
shows? The premium content (Netflix, HBO, Hulu...), people are willing to pay
for it.

It's the same trade-off for the web: if you want good content, either you pay
for it (NYTimes), or you have to deal with targeted ads.

TV networks don't target ads not because they don't want and prefer their own
business model. They don't do it because they can't.

And anyway: targeted ads are also way better for the user experience. If the
advertiser know you're blind, it won't show you 1000 times an ad for
sunglasses.

Tracking and ad targeting mean _less ads_ across the web.

~~~
kvb
Sure, there are definitely benefits to tracking, and if TV advertisers could
do it I'm sure they would. I just wanted to address the contention that DNT
implied that ads would be blocked. And I wonder how much benefit tracking
cookies really have - even without them you can target based on a site's rough
demographics, just not on a particular user's. Personally I find it creepy
when ads follow me around after searching for a product, for instance.

------
thinkling
I've read speculatiom [1] that while the freebox blocks ads more broadly, the
move is meant as a slap at Google's revenue specifically in a longer dispute
over the cost of bandwidth consumed by YouTube watchers.

The same article suggests that this move to block ads without user consent
breaks net neutrality, in the sense that the ISP doesn't let all content pass
on the same terms.

[1] <http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1237031>

~~~
Gmo
Yes, that's the current trending explanation.

The fact is, Free is notoriously bad for watching youtube videos (they
threshold bandwidth) and got bad rep recently about that along with a probe
from the ARCEP (the telecom watchdog agency) on the topic, so this is seen as
a kind of retaliation measure to the bandwidth hungry youtube.

~~~
tonfa
It's not really that they threshold the bandwidth, it's that they refuse to
upgrade a saturated peering unless money flows in their direction.

~~~
m3uh
Both might be the right answer... :s

------
laurent123456
The Arstechnica story has already been posted on Hacker News:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5004621>

------
patd
The article doesn't mention Google Analytics and I haven't seen a drop from my
Free users in GA. Any source for that ?

~~~
pioul
They talk about it here but it looks like Analytics isn't blocked anymore as
of this morning: [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) I updated the title consequently.

~~~
chmike
Yes. The bogus filtering of google analytics has been removed. The rules are
updated and refined by the ISP. Note that these filtering rules apply only on
DNS lookup and not at the HTTP level.

------
brador
At a certain point it becomes financially viable for Google to start an ISP in
France just to circumvent the block. It will be interesting to see how this
plays out.

~~~
fpgeek
Especially since Google is already learning how to be an ISP in Kansas City?

------
scriptproof
The best answer from Google would be to install a optical fiber network in
France!!!

~~~
troebr
The optical fiber network in France is actually way better than in the US. And
it only costs ~32 euros a month with Free with triple play. Certainly cheaper
than the ~100 usd it costs with Verizon (+ bs additional costs). I pay 56 usd
here for a terrible dsl connection.

------
unsquare
Just for the record , the owner of FreeBOX (ISP)(Xavier Niel) doesn't appear
to be blocking ads on websites that he owns.(Monde.fr) Can't wait for that
filter list to be public.

------
Styck
I wonder whether it would be unethical of Google to the ISP's customers.

------
mtgx
It seems Free already has an investigation against them for violating net
neutrality (they've been throttling Youtube traffic):

[http://gigaom.com/europe/french-isp-blocks-online-ads-by-
def...](http://gigaom.com/europe/french-isp-blocks-online-ads-by-default-just-
a-beta-feature-glitch)

This is most definitely a vindictive move against Google. I don't see this
ending too well for them.

