5 ms·

I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't

I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
- TheJoeMan 5y ago
  Ah but in a backwards twist my ISP now has a 1Tb per month data cap. You’d think this was huge, but I wanted to download all my games to a new Xbox…
  - 14 5y ago
    That is a failure of Xbox in my opinion. Games are 100gb these days. Massive. My monthly bandwidth is line 400gb. That is pretty common in Canada. We can’t afford to download all the games, again. There should be a local transfer of games done over wifi. It should be made easy.
    - Arrath 5y ago
      Uh, there is?[1] [1]https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console/enable-network-game-transfer-xbox-one https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console...
- sc11 5y ago
  On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
  - drKarl 5y ago
    Yeah, data caps was something common a few years ago...
    - Larrikin 5y ago
      Data caps are very common on phones, but even worse Comcast has implemented data limits across their services for home internet. https://www.fastcompany.com/90580656/comcast-data-cap-remote-work https://www.fastcompany.com/90580656/comcast-data-cap-remote...
    - criddell 5y ago
      I have a Google Fi phone and the data isn't capped, but it's $10 / GB.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Not quite. They have a soft 15 Gb cap, past which they throttle you down significantly but also don't charge you. And then it's $10 / Gb if you want to extend that cap.
        criddell 5y ago
        There's more than one plan. The one I'm on is $10/GB until you use 6 GB (or $60). You're right though that they slow down after 15 GB (not Gb) but I've never come anywhere near that. The way I look at it is that my plan is $20 then my data is $1 / 100 MB.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  On a mobile connection you generally have a data cap, and you can switch to a more expensive plan for a higher cap. That's the same thing as paying for bandwidth, just that you are buying in bulk with pre-commitment. To get significant damage as a single individual, take someone on a traditional satellite connection who can't get some important work done on time because ads put him above his data cap.
IMTDb 5y ago
They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming. The "free with advertising" business model is an efficient version of Advertisers give money to users give money to content provider Where money given to the users == money given to the content provider
- smhost 5y ago
  > They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming and the users pay for the service the advertisers are consuming.
  - api 5y ago
    It's called currency for a reason... it likes to flow.
    - smhost 5y ago
      as long as it isn't downward
      - scns 5y ago
        Then it would be called suction, maelstrom or waterfall, sometimes undertow.
    - spicybright 5y ago
      This actually blew my mind, lol
jeffbee 5y ago
Please explain how that logic fits in with the rest of this thread. It was your user agent running on your machine which requested the advertisement.
yumraj 5y ago
That is indeed an interesting point, especially for users who have metered Internet service. Consider a user with a data cap of 1000GB, is metered as consuming say 1200GB of data, of which 200GB is Ads. The user is forced to pay extra for the 200GB to the ISP which the user should not have had to pay if there were no Ads. Ignoring that ISPs should not meter the service, the above just doesn't seem right. The individual Internet services may be subsidized by Ads, but the user is paying to the ISP. So, in effect a user is paying, just to a different party. Some lawyer should definitely look into it and see if there is potential for a class-action against Ad vendors. Edit: I'm sure the flip argument would be that the user requested the Internet services that came with the Ad, so in effect the user is responsible for consuming the data. But that is where I think it becomes interesting and given that IMNAL I don't know what the legal minds think.

I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.

TheJoeMan 5y ago
Ah but in a backwards twist my ISP now has a 1Tb per month data cap. You’d think this was huge, but I wanted to download all my games to a new Xbox…
- 14 5y ago
  That is a failure of Xbox in my opinion. Games are 100gb these days. Massive. My monthly bandwidth is line 400gb. That is pretty common in Canada. We can’t afford to download all the games, again. There should be a local transfer of games done over wifi. It should be made easy.
  - Arrath 5y ago
    Uh, there is?[1] [1]https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console/enable-network-game-transfer-xbox-one https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console...
sc11 5y ago
On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
- drKarl 5y ago
  Yeah, data caps was something common a few years ago...
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    Data caps are very common on phones, but even worse Comcast has implemented data limits across their services for home internet. https://www.fastcompany.com/90580656/comcast-data-cap-remote-work https://www.fastcompany.com/90580656/comcast-data-cap-remote...
  - criddell 5y ago
    I have a Google Fi phone and the data isn't capped, but it's $10 / GB.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Not quite. They have a soft 15 Gb cap, past which they throttle you down significantly but also don't charge you. And then it's $10 / Gb if you want to extend that cap.
      - criddell 5y ago
        There's more than one plan. The one I'm on is $10/GB until you use 6 GB (or $60). You're right though that they slow down after 15 GB (not Gb) but I've never come anywhere near that. The way I look at it is that my plan is $20 then my data is $1 / 100 MB.
wongarsu 5y ago
On a mobile connection you generally have a data cap, and you can switch to a more expensive plan for a higher cap. That's the same thing as paying for bandwidth, just that you are buying in bulk with pre-commitment. To get significant damage as a single individual, take someone on a traditional satellite connection who can't get some important work done on time because ads put him above his data cap.

IMTDb 5y ago

They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming. The "free with advertising" business model is an efficient version of Advertisers give money to users give money to content provider Where money given to the users == money given to the content provider

smhost 5y ago
> They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming and the users pay for the service the advertisers are consuming.
- api 5y ago
  It's called currency for a reason... it likes to flow.
  - smhost 5y ago
    as long as it isn't downward
    - scns 5y ago
      Then it would be called suction, maelstrom or waterfall, sometimes undertow.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    This actually blew my mind, lol

jeffbee 5y ago

Please explain how that logic fits in with the rest of this thread. It was your user agent running on your machine which requested the advertisement.

yumraj 5y ago

That is indeed an interesting point, especially for users who have metered Internet service. Consider a user with a data cap of 1000GB, is metered as consuming say 1200GB of data, of which 200GB is Ads. The user is forced to pay extra for the 200GB to the ISP which the user should not have had to pay if there were no Ads. Ignoring that ISPs should not meter the service, the above just doesn't seem right. The individual Internet services may be subsidized by Ads, but the user is paying to the ISP. So, in effect a user is paying, just to a different party. Some lawyer should definitely look into it and see if there is potential for a class-action against Ad vendors. Edit: I'm sure the flip argument would be that the user requested the Internet services that came with the Ad, so in effect the user is responsible for consuming the data. But that is where I think it becomes interesting and given that IMNAL I don't know what the legal minds think.