7 ms·

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 thr

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 11y ago
I'm shocked at some of the answers in this thread: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-s-digicel-takes-on-google-and-facebook-1.2373553 http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-... 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 11y ago
  "People think this is some sort of fancy "Ad Block Plus" -- it's not." Uh... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...
  - s_dev 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      > 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 11y ago
        This is why we need to switch to https.
camillomiller 11y ago
Indeed. I have a much broader Press Release that is actually pretty clear in stating that Three believes it that ads publisher should pay for the data they use to bring the ad on the user's phone. This is a slippery slope, and certainly a threat to net neutrality.
- makomk 11y ago
  Three also believes that users shouldn't have to pay for the data that advertisers use to bring ads to their phone, which seems reasonable enough - I think we've reached to the point where users are paying more in data costs to view ads than the advertisers are paying to advertise to them which is ridiculous.
  - camillomiller 11y ago
    This is also true, indeed, but I don't think it's a provider's role to decide what kind of ads should pass or be blocked, especially if such decision will be based on who's paying and who's not.

s_dev 11y ago

I'm shocked at some of the answers in this thread: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-s-digicel-takes-on-google-and-facebook-1.2373553 http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-... 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 11y ago
"People think this is some sort of fancy "Ad Block Plus" -- it's not." Uh... http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...
- s_dev 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    > 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 11y ago
      This is why we need to switch to https.

camillomiller 11y ago

Indeed. I have a much broader Press Release that is actually pretty clear in stating that Three believes it that ads publisher should pay for the data they use to bring the ad on the user's phone. This is a slippery slope, and certainly a threat to net neutrality.

makomk 11y ago
Three also believes that users shouldn't have to pay for the data that advertisers use to bring ads to their phone, which seems reasonable enough - I think we've reached to the point where users are paying more in data costs to view ads than the advertisers are paying to advertise to them which is ridiculous.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  This is also true, indeed, but I don't think it's a provider's role to decide what kind of ads should pass or be blocked, especially if such decision will be based on who's paying and who's not.