3 ms·
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
by 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 agoA 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 agoThis is why we need to switch to https.