
Three to become first European network to block ads - s_dev
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/three-to-become-first-european-network-to-block-ads-1.2541160
======
SamiTriki
This is not true, the french mobile operation Free Mobile already started
doing since early 2013

[http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24803-free-propose-aussi-
le...](http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24803-free-propose-aussi-le-blocage-
de-la-publicite-sur-free-mobile.html)

------
njharman
I'm all for ad blocking. But I'm even more for net neutrality. ISP blocking
ads is tiny step away from "blocking all ads expect the ones ISP is paid to
let through" and selectively blocking any other kind of content.

ISPs are utilities, not censors, nor cops.

Someone else mentioned "opt-in" which would not violate net-neutrality and I
support.

~~~
s_dev
I'm shocked at some of the answers in this thread:
[http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-
brien-...](http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-s-
digicel-takes-on-google-and-facebook-1.2373553)

People think this is some sort of fancy "Ad Block Plus" \-- it's not.

Basically the ISPs want Google and Facebook to give them revenue because they
"transport" their packets that are ads. This is an affront to net neutrality.

Three will block ads and then charge Google/FB to let them through.

~~~
Kurtz79
"People think this is some sort of fancy "Ad Block Plus" \-- it's not."

Uh...

[http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-
now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/)

~~~
s_dev
A browser plug-in modifying/controlling traffic. Acceptable.

An ISP modifying/controlling traffic. Dangerous precedent.

What makes it different in my view is that in one scenario the end user is in
control in the other the ISP is in control.

~~~
qb45
> An ISP modifying/controlling traffic. Dangerous precedent.

Some ISPs have already been _adding_ ads. The only precedent here is that
those guys are _removing_ them instead.

Maybe we will live to see times when ads injected by ISP1 end up filtered by
ISP2 and replaced with others by ISP3, all within a single TCP stream :)

~~~
Buge
This is why we need to switch to https.

------
ziszis
Right now there is a free rider problem with internet content. If this becomes
more prevalent the market will have to adjust to deal with free riders.

If you believe that content creators have a right to earn money there are two
ways that can happen: 1) directly - you pay directly for the content that you
want to consume or 2) indirectly - you see ads or sell your data in some way.

I wonder what people will choose if these are the choices. Right now you can
ignore paywalls because relatively few sites employ them and they aren't
robust.

~~~
Omniusaspirer
There's only a "free rider problem" if you view the internet as a tool to
generate income, as opposed to a tool you can use to offer something to the
world. If all ads were gone tomorrow I wouldn't see a single website I
regularly use drop off the internet. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that
the quality of web content on average would skyrocket if you couldn't make a
dime off of ads.

~~~
dwild
How does ads affect this hypothetical world where quality of web content
skyrocket?

The web isn't a closed platform for a limited number of service. Multiple
website are trying to survive without ads, Wikipedia is one of them. Nothing
stop them.

Ads allow for content creator that still need to pay rent, to actually produce
content while still paying rent. You know like any job.

The one that still can produce without anything, are still free to do it
currently and plenty are actually doing it.

~~~
CaptSpify
Everyone ends up contributing to the ad-focused world, instead. How many
people post on reddit/twitter/facebook, vs their own blog?

------
malsun
I guess I'm fine with it as long as it's opt-in - by that I mean, so long as
the customer has to actively look for the option.

If all ISPs did this by default then a lot of content on the web would
disappear several months down the line.

~~~
jlarocco
"If all ISPs did this by default then a lot of content on the web would
disappear several months down the line."

Good. I don't think most of that would be missed much.

~~~
ziszis
What depends on ads?

Top sites and apps: Facebook, Google, New York Times, Gmail, Podcasts (that
are increasingly ad supported), Google Maps, etc. Most of the content that
trends on hn. Long tail of content that lets you get an answer to just about
anything on Google.

I think some of these would be missed.

~~~
malsun
There's also services like Blogger, which I don't think have advertising, but
since Google is probably the biggest player in the ad industry then I guess
its existence relies on ads. Even web browsers like Firefox indirectly rely on
ad money.

------
s_dev
This is illegal under EU law:[https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/despite-the-hype-
isp-adblocki...](https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/despite-the-hype-isp-
adblocking-is-a-no-go-in-europe/)

What makes it illegal is Deep Packet Inspection.

~~~
lhopki01
Almost certainly done by host blacklisting. Even ad blockers on computers
usually do this. It's just easier.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Browser-integrated adblockers can do better, because they have access to the
page content. Host-based blacklists don't work as well; they can only handle
hosts that serve ads and nothing else, not hosts that serve both ads and non-
ads.

But yeah, host-based blacklisting is the only approach with a hope of working
outside the browser. Transparently proxying web traffic wouldn't (and
shouldn't) work with HTTPS, and is an incredibly bad idea even with HTTP.

------
eCa
> But although the company said it plans to roll out the technology
> internationally, it is not yet clear when Irish customers will _feel the
> benefit_. [emphasis added]

Interesting wording on an ad-supported site.

------
est
the next thing you know, your political opinion became filtered like ads.

