 |
 | Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! Agreed, if the ISP wants to cap me and then advertisers bitch that I don't want to use my monthly allotted bandwidth to download their crap, maybe the advertisers can take a run at telling the ISP's off instead of M$...
Oh wait even the *ISP* is guilty of trying to shove ads down my throat 
Sorry but NoScript & AdBlock for me until and unless this whole cap business is finally killed (which is never... so buzz off advertisers)
NefCanuck | |
|
| | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! said by NefCanuck:Agreed, if the ISP wants to cap me and then advertisers bitch that I don't want to use my monthly allotted bandwidth to download their crap, maybe the advertisers can take a run at telling the ISP's off instead of M$...
Oh wait even the *ISP* is guilty of trying to shove ads down my throat
Sorry but NoScript & AdBlock for me until and unless this whole cap business is finally killed (which is never... so buzz off advertisers)
NefCanuck
By visiting the site, you agree to download the site's material, as well as any advertisements they place on it.
Are you seriously complaining about ads taking up too much space? It's barely noticeable when compared to the size of a web page and all the related images. | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! Actually, I don't think any such 'agreement' exists. You are perfectly within your rights to HTTP Get specific parts of a publicly available page and not get others. The complaint is not about ads taking up space... it is about taking up bandwidth that is no longer unlimited. | |
|
| | | | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! said by CXM_Splicer:Actually, I don't think any such 'agreement' exists. You are perfectly within your rights to HTTP Get specific parts of a publicly available page and not get others. The complaint is not about ads taking up space... it is about taking up bandwidth that is no longer unlimited.
Don't complain about the tiny bit of bandwidth taken up by ads, it's how the site stays alive. If you want, feel free to adblock them because you hate seeing ads, but don't justify it with false arguments about bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! said by JTR:said by CXM_Splicer:Actually, I don't think any such 'agreement' exists. You are perfectly within your rights to HTTP Get specific parts of a publicly available page and not get others. The complaint is not about ads taking up space... it is about taking up bandwidth that is no longer unlimited.
Don't complain about the tiny bit of bandwidth taken up by ads, it's how the site stays alive. If you want, feel free to adblock them because you hate seeing ads, but don't justify it with false arguments about bandwidth. The Internet was awesome back in 1990 - and gueeswhat???? Not a fucking ad in sight.
We're on to the shills now, fucking sellouts.... | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| My argument about bandwidth is legitimate... if you want to limit false arguments used for justification, I suggest you revisit your 'agreement' post 
Any discussion of the sites making revenue from the ads is immaterial to either bandwidth or 'implied requirements' of viewing them. | |
|
| | | | | |  The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! It's more about the principle of the matter.
Not really surprised about AT&T crying about this, after all they are "spooks" for the government. As for Verizon? I didn't expect this of them.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
|
| | | | | | | said by JTR: Don't complain about the tiny bit of bandwidth taken up by ads
I'm sure you wouldn't complain about someone taking a "tiny bit" of money out of your wallet from time to time, right? | |
|
| | |  Rogue WolfReally Ties The Room Together
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Do you not do much Web surfing? Some sites (especially news sites) are "gating" pages with full-motion video ads, with sound. Some of these are 30 to 45 seconds long. You can't tell me that a single news page with text and (maybe) two small pictures uses more bandwidth than half a minute of 480x320 video with audio.
Best of all is when the videos freeze with five seconds left to go, and you reload the page so you can try to read it, only to have a brand-new video ad load....
--
I may have been born yesterday, but I've spent all afternoon downtown. | |
|
| | | WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | said by JTR:By visiting the site, you agree to download the site's material, as well as any advertisements they place on it.
I don't think so. | |
|
| | | | | Most websites I visit are mainly text. So these flashy picture ads take up more data.
Though i'm not arguing with this point, I just thought i'd bring that to the table.
Have you seen some sites ads? There are more ads(pictures, javascript, flash) than text on the page! Which is what i'm reading. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by JTR:said by NefCanuck:Agreed, if the ISP wants to cap me and then advertisers bitch that I don't want to use my monthly allotted bandwidth to download their crap, maybe the advertisers can take a run at telling the ISP's off instead of M$...
Oh wait even the *ISP* is guilty of trying to shove ads down my throat
Sorry but NoScript & AdBlock for me until and unless this whole cap business is finally killed (which is never... so buzz off advertisers)
NefCanuck
By visiting the site, you agree to download the site's material, as well as any advertisements they place on it. Are you seriously complaining about ads taking up too much space? It's barely noticeable when compared to the size of a web page and all the related images. Sorry but no, nowhere in the TOS for any of the sites I visit (or any other site on the Internet I would wager for that matter) is there any verbage requiring me to use up my data allotment (provided by my ISP) to view ads, whether they be simple text ads or now more often than not, flashy adverts that do consume a significant amount of data.
If a site refuses to let me on because I refused to be tracked, I can find alternative sites with the same information, thats the beauty of the Internet.
In fact the only thing I dislike about my iPad is the fact that there is no way to block ads from ever being downloaded in the first place while using the built in browser, again because its a waste of my data allotment.
NefCanuck | |
|
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Mr Matt:  The advertising pigs fail to mention that unrequested advertising uses up a subscribers data allowance because so many ISP's are employing CAPS!... Except the HTTP verb for loading a page is GET (or POST) and not PUSH. You're browser requested it, it was never pushed to you. You yourself may not have personally requested the ad, but the page that you did loaded did. Yeah it may be schematics, but saying it was unrequested isn't true. | |
|
| | | | Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! Did you mean "semantics"? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance! Maybe he's trying to draw us a picture. | |
|
| | | This is something that I've been complaining about since the topic of caps was first being mentioned around here. Simply unacceptable. I choose an ISP withOUT caps and I do NOT want ads pushed to me while I'm browsing the web. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| Agree. I'm on a slow satellite connection and they want to pump flash ads down my throat that use up my data allowance.
Let them pay my ISP for the data costs for the ads and I might let them through(like TV commercials do).
Bravo Microsoft. | |
|
| | How can you tell a corporate mouthpiece is lying? His/her lips are moving. | |
|
| | A load of BS What makes these people actually think I would desire to:
1. Pay attention to their irritating ads
2. Make a coherent decision to purchase sign up or engage such advertisers
3.Desire to pay for the downloading of their irritating ads.
M$S is a lot of things these days but at least they are giving us an option to opt-in rather than being screwed by the opt-out that never seems to actually work. Remind me to withhold any support of such sleazy advertisers of my hard-earned wallet contents.
Are you listening you bunch of sleazy douche bags a.k.a. the ANA | |
|
| | Out of character for Microsoft? Setting up do not track as a default setting seems a little out of character for Microsoft. | |
|
| | | Re: Out of character for Microsoft? said by battleop:Setting up do not track as a default setting seems a little out of character for Microsoft.
Yeah, yet IE by default STILL doesn't empty Temp Items folder (no one needs to worry about dial-up refreshing of frequently used items...) yet this folder is primary dumpster for malware, etc...and first thing I script off.
--
Splat | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by battleop:Setting up do not track as a default setting seems a little out of character for Microsoft.
Not really.
1}It's very much in their interest for you to LIKE using their browser over others.
2}Like google and every other ad company, getting exclusive use of even the small amount of info, is more valuble then shared use of stuff all of them see. | |
|
| |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Not if this is nothing more than giving Google the finger.
As far as harming innovation, I disagree. Nature always maintains a symbiotic equilibrium. This will actually promote innovation in an effort to restore whatever the new setting negates. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Does It Really Matter? The advertisers have a hole big enough to drive a truck through anyhow. They can simply ignore the setting, as many are doing now, and continue on their way. In fact, a WSJ article in this mornings links at »blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/10/02/···k-pledge says they already work around the setting.
Unless your a running utilities such as AdBlock and Ghostery, you are trusting the advertisers to honor your request which is like trusting Bernie Madhoff to take care of your bank account.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| |
| | screw the orifice Stay strong Microsoft and don't ever allow any of the carrier orifice's to dictate their agenda's over what's right and in the consumers best interest. | |
|
| | The pot calling the kettle black... ...harm consumers, hurt competition, and undermine American innovation...
AT&T should know all about that. | |
|
wrad
join:2003-09-11
Fort Pierce, FL | M$ Do Not Track I applaud Microsoft's stance. Install ScriptNo on any of the Chromium-based browsers to learn who wants to keep track of you. It even gives the URL of the web-bugs. | |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Do not track by default, doesn't... ...prevent you from seeing ads, It just prevents the ad server from identifing what ads you have seen at what site. This is just changing the balance to 100% OPT_IN.
It's a VERY good thing.
The only downside is sites will begin to hide CONTENT until the actual ad has displayed(some already do )and the reduction in the ad value means the volume will increase greatly (yes, you still have a few square inches of un-ad-obstructed space on your monitor, damn you!)
BTW Do Not TRACK Plus works well on IE8 & 9 too. | |
|
 SuntopPremium
join:2000-03-23
Choteau, MT
 ·3Rivers Communic..
| Ads? I do not get any! Well folks you do not need ADBLOCK, noscript, or IE10 don't track. I use a feature built in all versions of windows that blocks all ads and adult sites. (Not that I go to them, it is useful to filter out because M$ parent control don't catch all of them) I use a HOSTS file that blocks them. There are 2 ways to do this, if you like to write your own you can but you have to have an elevated command prompt. The other is to use the MVPS Hosts file, now it will block Google Ad Services so if you want to visit any links that are sponsored or click adwords you will have to comment them out with #.
Stick it to the ads anyways, they NEVER EVER show anything I would ever click! Oh and Wahhh @T&T, COMCAST, and all others that get mad because they cannot cram ads down our pipes to help get the user to go over it's cap so they can make $$ not only off the ads themselves but all bandwidth use. They are CRYING because of this. Screw em! If they do not like it then take off the caps. (Not that they EVER WILL!!) I am on a UNI connection so I do not have any caps.
I get NO MALWARE, NO SEARCH HIJACKING, and especially NO *BLEEP*ING ADS! 
BTW Only you can prevent overages. *lol*
--
The following statement is true...
The preceding statement was false!!
--George Carlin | |
|
| | | Re: Ads? I do not get any! said by Suntop:Well folks you do not need ADBLOCK, noscript, or IE10 don't track. I use a feature built in all versions of windows that blocks all ads and adult sites. (Not that I go to them, it is useful to filter out because M$ parent control don't catch all of them) I use a HOSTS file that blocks them. There are 2 ways to do this, if you like to write your own you can but you have to have an elevated command prompt. The other is to use the MVPS Hosts file, now it will block Google Ad Services so if you want to visit any links that are sponsored or click adwords you will have to comment them out with #.
Stick it to the ads anyways, they NEVER EVER show anything I would ever click! Oh and Wahhh @T&T, COMCAST, and all others that get mad because they cannot cram ads down our pipes to help get the user to go over it's cap so they can make $$ not only off the ads themselves but all bandwidth use. They are CRYING because of this. Screw em! If they do not like it then take off the caps. (Not that they EVER WILL!!) I am on a UNI connection so I do not have any caps.
I get NO MALWARE, NO SEARCH HIJACKING, and especially NO *BLEEP*ING ADS!
BTW Only you can prevent overages. *lol*
I can't believe everyone in the world doesn't use MVPS's host file and then add what ever you want to it!
No need for any stupid addons, which with as many as most people have loaded in their browsers now a days (ridiculous), only slows you down.
One person above said something about how they can believe AT&T crying about this but not Verizon. Sure would like to know what that person is smoking?! 
Personally,
Those are 2 companies I wish would be destroyed/dismembered/etc....
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | ... Just because they are members of the Association of National Advertisers doesn't mean they share the same ideology. | |
|
|
| | | Re: Here is the soultion for advertizers Sounds like a plan I could stay behind! No reason to ever accept!
... Unless it's gay porn they would be showing.. | |
|
| | WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | Re: Here is the soultion for advertizers said by Metatron2008:... Unless it's gay porn they would be showing..
I still wouldn't want it. It would be boring.
Back in the late '60s, me and my boyfriend herded sheep in northern Idaho. I was Brokeback Mountain before color TV. | |
|
| | Crybabies. quote:
The idea that prohibiting corporations from tracking or slathering websites with ads will ruin the Internet has been something companies have been arguing for a decade.
Well, it might ruin it for them ... after all, they're looking for victims. And they've gotten a darn sight greedier and more invasive over that decade.
But their "ruin" would be welcomed by most users. Maybe they should revisit the idea of pleasing their customers for a change, instead of treating us like chattel. | |
|
| | If corporations are people, Advertisements = freespeech Why would you want to quash freespeech? I hope the supreme court rectifies this situation soon. In Sculia We trust | |
|
| | | Re: If corporations are people, Advertisements = freespeech Going on the premise of free-speech, just because someone has a right to say some thing doesn't mean I have no choice but to listen to them. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | DNT So how did these crybaby advertisers get along before there were persistent tracking cookies and worse?
Seems to me, they can still show just as many ads as before (of course noscript / adblock will remove them) just not as targeted.. BFD. | |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3 | Corporatist are not entitled to stalk people...get over it advertisers. Choke on your greed and DIAF. | |
|
| | but I allow them on some smaller sites I frequent as I think they could use the little bit of income it might generate for them. They don't have more than 2 per page and don't do the mandatory auto-start streaming of "news'. Yes, the little window is there but they allow me to decide if I want to watch it and when. Others like Hulu and some TV sites have one or more brief ads at the start of or during the show. They don't bother me as I usually mute until they are over. Most other sites get the DoNotTrack/AdblockPlus combo.
While my current ISP doesn't cap (and I've hit 150-200 GB monthly with no problem), I don't stop the ads due to data consumption or page slowdown (have a 30/5 connection). I stop them because most websites bog down their site with many per page, auto-start videos, and are overall intrusive on MY experience.
Now, if only sites wouldn't be so wrapped up in the floating FB/Twitter bars. Some of them (sites) flat-ass refuse to function if you disable the bars.
I don't worry about consumption on my phone--it's a novel one, used to talk/text and not for surfing/playing games/ making my e-peen grow because of all the useless crap a smart phone can do. | |
|
| | If anything's "damaging the online experience", it's the damn ads themselves, not the ability to block them. The advertisers only have themselves to blame. They brought this on themselves. Most people were OK with a reasonable amount of ads, but they had to push things. Very few people complained about a simple banner, but when it mutated into those obnoxious flashing / shaking boxes, as well as the annoying pop-ups and boxes that take over the entire page and lock it up, then people started getting fed up and blocking the ads. And let's not forget about those damned fake virus scanners. It's getting to the point where it's dangerous not to block the ads. | |
|
|
|
Unrequested advertising uses up subscribers data allowance!
