4 ms·

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

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 http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1237031

Gmo 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Both might be the right answer... :s
- troebr 14y ago
  I have been using Free for years, and now that I moved across the pond, I can safely say that Free is at least on par with Verizon for Youtube, probably better. And if we simply ignore the Youtube issue, Verizon is years behind Free, there is simply no comparison between the two. I get ~6/7Mbps here with Verizon, and I simply cannot watch a 720p video on Youtube. No problem with Vimeo, Twitch, Netflix etc.
m3uh 14y ago
Actually "net neutrality" is a philosophy. Just a philosophy. The only aspect of it that is currently a law refer to "content of [the end-users'] choice" as long as it does not "harm the network". However, as rickmb pointed out earlier [1]: "[...] virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of cross-site user tracking without explicit permission." Which rightfully points that ads may "harm the network" by breaking the secrecy of correspondence ("harm" is not restricted in any sense, and anyway the higher Europen Convention on Human Rights talks about that required respect secrecy), and that they may not be the result of "end-users' choice" (did you ever asked for a specific ad to be displayed?). Net neutrality versus secrecy of correspondence. Round 2 probably... well, not far from now. :) [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 or just scroll up to the first comment ;)

Gmo 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Both might be the right answer... :s
troebr 14y ago
I have been using Free for years, and now that I moved across the pond, I can safely say that Free is at least on par with Verizon for Youtube, probably better. And if we simply ignore the Youtube issue, Verizon is years behind Free, there is simply no comparison between the two. I get ~6/7Mbps here with Verizon, and I simply cannot watch a 720p video on Youtube. No problem with Vimeo, Twitch, Netflix etc.

m3uh 14y ago

Actually "net neutrality" is a philosophy. Just a philosophy. The only aspect of it that is currently a law refer to "content of [the end-users'] choice" as long as it does not "harm the network". However, as rickmb pointed out earlier [1]: "[...] virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of cross-site user tracking without explicit permission." Which rightfully points that ads may "harm the network" by breaking the secrecy of correspondence ("harm" is not restricted in any sense, and anyway the higher Europen Convention on Human Rights talks about that required respect secrecy), and that they may not be the result of "end-users' choice" (did you ever asked for a specific ad to be displayed?). Net neutrality versus secrecy of correspondence. Round 2 probably... well, not far from now. :) [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 or just scroll up to the first comment ;)