how-to block ads
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Re: F this
While I agree generally with your comments about the ads, when the provider is involved, serving or otherwise has financial interest in the ad it gets a bit more complex. Not quite as extreme, but it would be like a cell phone carrier sending a SMS ad to you and then charging you for the SMS message. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| When you're talking about stuff coming from the provider's site, sure. I had a feeling that this one would come up. 
The only thing I could counter that with is simply put, if you're logging onto a provider's site from their line, they direct you to a non-ad served site. Or, the other thing would be that you still have the option NOT to visit their site as well. But, I do agree with double dipping being wrong. | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
2 edits | said by fiberguy  :When you're talking about stuff coming from the provider's site, sure. I had a feeling that this one would come up. The only thing I could counter that with is simply put, if you're logging onto a provider's site from their line, they direct you to a non-ad served site. Or, the other thing would be that you still have the option NOT to visit their site as well. But, I do agree with double dipping being wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whats to stop them from making bandwidth intensive ads? Or investing in companies that due? | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Who knows.. and who cares... I already made my point and your post doesn't change it. .. if you go to a site that is sucking bandwidth, or serving ads you don't want to pay for, then don't go there.
Your post sounds a lot like nanny-ism at it's best. Again, let me be clear since the memory span on this site is small.. I don't support metered billing. However, no matter HOW you are being charged for the internet, it's still the user that is the cause for data to flow the direction of your modem. Metered billing isn't enough to change how you get your content. You click, you get what you get. You have NO idea if when you launch a site if you're going to get ads or not.. that's still your issue and no one else's.
Any other ad related issues regarding the provider, see my post above. | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
4 edits | The shills have gotten smarter on this site I must say, with sophisticated positions like "i don't support metered billing But........." or "i don't like what this company does But......"
Oh, and for the "who cares", i would assume anyone who pays an internet bill.
You still have yet to address the fact the more ads = a larger bill. You only counter is "who cares" | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
 from:
fiberguy
| said by DataRiker :You still have yet to address the fact the more ads = a larger bill. You only counter is "who cares" The counter is the ads aren't large enough to affect your bill.
Are you really getting GIGABYTES worth of ads? No, maybe a few hundred megabytes... How does the amount of data in the ads compare to the caps needed to be billed by the GB?
Your bitching is equivalent to complaining about being charged for the vapors and drips coming off the gas pump when you just put 20 gallons in your car. Or it's the amount of milk left coating the container when it's too empty to fill a glass. Yes it's measurable, no it doesn't make a difference in your bill.
If you think otherwise, show us your bandwidth logs JUST for ads you downloaded. Tell us how many GBs of ads you downloaded last month. What's the ratio of ad bandwidth to requested data? 1 to 99?
If it's that big of a problem, BLOCK the ads. There's LOTS of solutions for that, many of them free. | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
2 edits | your reply is block the ads its easy?
what a joke
and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth.
So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads.
The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible. | |
RR User
@rr.com
from:
fiberguy
| said by DataRiker :your reply is block the ads its easy? what a joke and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth. So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads. The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible. Easy. AdBlock Plus and a hosts file catch 99% of the ads that may be on the sites I surf.
I download over 100GB of data a month, yet the ads might add up to 100 MB even without the ad blocking stuff.
If the limit is even TWCs low 40GB before metered billing starts, how do you get 20 or 30% of a bill going to ads? How much data do you think the AVERAGE user consumes?
If all you did was surf MySpace, then maybe you'd get percentage of ads you're thinking of, but you'd get nowhere near enough data use to pass the limit to hit billable data usage.
To get alot of data use you're downloading movies, music, disk images, games, updates, etc, not ad filled web surfing. Mass bandwidth usage (say 40GB and up) doesn't come with ads.
Prove otherwise or shutup. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to DataRiker
So.. "Shills".. in your view, those who don't see YOUR point of view.. I guess to me, using your own view, you're a "shill"..
Since when did ads on, say, Amazon.com or Ebay.com, become the problem of your ISP or your bill? Like it or not, ads are content of the site you visit. If you don't like the site you visit having ads, DON'T VISIT!
Your continual posting and ranting about "ads.. ads.. ads" is very clearly telling of how you think you have some kind of inherit right to not view an ad.. You also keep forgetting that the site you visit is supported by those ads. However, you wouldn't get it becuase while you're not a "shill".. you're someone with an entitlement attitude. You also are someone that wants their cake and eat it too..
I'm guessing you're one that wants the ISP to be a dumb pipe.. so, stop making it the dumb pipe's problem about the sites YOU CHOSE to visit.
Ads are a fact of the internet. Deal with it.. yes, I said it.. deal with it.. and get some cheese for that wine. | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
1 edit | Your solution is to stop using the internet. How clever.
Let's see so far we have
A.) Ads are way too small (not true, by the way)
AND
B.) you should be using an Ad blocker (silly me !)
Look at how terrified you shills are of this point. I must have hit a sore spot. | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
from:
fiberguy
| said by DataRiker :Let's see so far we have A.) Ads are way too small (not true, by the way) AND B.) you should be using an Ad blocker (silly me !) Prove either one is not true or won't work. Tell us how much ad bandwidth the average user or even JUST YOURSELF uses in a month compared to everything else.
Actually just tell us how much bandwidth overall you use.
If you can't do that, YOU ARE A TROLL with no facts, just FUD and scare mongering.
or is your only come back to say the contrary? | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DataRiker
You're REALLY taking a LONG walk on a shorrrrrt pier here.
For one, stop putting words in my mouth. In case you forgot, this is a message board on the internet and what I said is clearly in plain view.. even after I posted it. (And now you're looking really silly)
I never said stop using the internet.. I said it your CHOICE of where you go. Stop being so damn thick skulled and stop trying to be the victim.. it's not attractive. Your attitude, next, is one of looking for a welfare line. Yes, I said it! You're really whining loud here.
I don't know how much more clear I can make this... ADS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE ISP! And, like there is no 'separation of church and state' as some people try to twist it, there is no 'separation of ads and content' on the internet.
Why don't you stop spinning there, cuz all you're getting is dizzy, and explain how the ads on Weather.com, amazon.com, ebay.com, net and even the ones on the bottom of Yahoo messenger, for example, are not your problem?
You got a problem with ads, among other things, we get it! But, just because the industry is screaming they are looking for ways to meter bill that ads some how are no longer allowed? The "sites" *you chose* to visit place those ads there to support their site so that people like you can go visit for free. And, um, last I checked, even BBR, for non-premium members, has.. (all together now).. "ADS!" I wonder why that is?
You're dancing all around the real issue... address that, or, politely shut up.. All you're saying is "I don't want to have to pay to download the ads on the internet".. well, explain why that would be the problem of the ISP in the first place, or quite honestly.. grow up.
And second, you keep calling me a shill.. you keep saying that I support metered billing. Um, again, grow up. You've been told many times already that I don't support metered billing. I've told you here, I've told you before, and it's been posted on this site MANY times that I don't support it. The fact you keep name calling and bringing the same flawed argument up just shows your diminished presumed age, Riker. It's really telling as to your foundation which is nothing more than ranting at this point.
My argument is based not on supporting billing per byte.. my argument is based PURELY on the argument that if meter billing went into affect that ads shouldn't be allowed or that you shouldn't pay for them. Um, you want the ISP to be neutral.. to them, ads would be just bytes.. what you down load is between YOU and the SITE that YOU CHOSE to visit.. get it yet? You don't want that counted against you, either block ads, or avoid those sites.. that's your choice. But, the fact that you have this issue of downloading so many megs and megs and megs of ads all the time tells me your habbits on the internet.. you seem to hit a lot of sites that offer you alot of something for nothing.. all they ask is for you to see ads so THEY can pay to GIVE you content for free.. and, here you come along and are bitching about getting something for free.
You've got some real character there. I assume, too, by no other choice than the way you are behaving right now, that:
1) you don't feel you need to pay your full share in life.
2) the government has it's own money and you're entitled to some of it forgetting that its yours and everyone else's money that pays the government. 3) you think that redistribution of the wealth is acceptable (and forget that redistribution also takes money from upper lower and middle class people, not just the rich)
3) Life owes you something or that entitlement is a good thing.
And one last though on the ads.. your internet experience is what YOU CHOSE to make of it. As it was stated before, many people go on the internet and rarely see ads. Many people can use the internet for simply sending email, chatting, and checking their bank accounts - yup! They still do as little as that!
No one here is "terrified".. just you saying it doesn't mean it's true. Because you mis-use the term "shill" doesn't mean that anyone other than you is one. (It's really getting old and you using it is only flame bating people which is against the TOS here, but you don't care about little things like that do you?) And a sore spot? no.. I just feel compelled right now to put someone like you in your place. We're all entitled to our opinions, however, by calling me and others "shills" and ignoring what the "other side" is saying makes you an extremist. You're so happy to rant about ads, you've forgotten or missed that I've got and stated positions that are on both sides of the argument..
But, enjoy yourself.. and the free ride in life you're looking for. And remember, just because you pay "something" for a service doesn't give you cart blanc right to control it.
.. or maybe I don't care becuase I get up every day, bust my a*s, work in the middle America, lower middle class world and earn EVERY penny I make with blisters on my hands (to which people like you assume I'm rich) while I know I can afford the internet even if it were metered.. I don't WANT it metered.. but if they did, it would not affect me. The value of the internet, and the money it's saved me from the past on so many other services, is worth upwards to the $100 a month that I had to pay back in the early 2000's for a 256K line.
Enjoy! | |
ScaredGuy1234
@covad.net
| I don't believe the issue is so much with ads in general. Yes, they are content on the site. But what if said ad is supported by the Provider, and they get a kickback in some way. Or if provider decides to massively overhaul their website to use much more bandwidth. Linking the ad back to the provider would show that not only is the provider charging you access to the ad, but is profiting from the ad itself.
The provider could see potential profit in supporting companies that produce bandwidth intensive ads, or even starting their own. If they get to increase the amount of bandwidth the ad will use, they increase their own profit margins greatly. It is not so much how much it will cost 1 customer, but how much when you multiply that by the total number of customers.
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| "what if"... taking this argument that you pose, on its own value, so what?
The only place that I have a problem with ads being placed by an ISP or provider of data transport billing by the bit, is on their own sites where you have to visit a portal or something to manage your account.
Ads are an INCREDIBLY small part of the internet. I don't dismiss what you say at all.. okay? so don't get me wrong.. however, I will say that this particular argument line goes into MAJOR dangerous ground. It is 100% impossible to patrol everything in life and no matter how ANYONE tries, you can't always get it right and make it "fair".. which is what this is all boiling down to.. "what's fair".. which, by the way, isn't a right.
I've already gone on record that ISP based ads should not be on their own sites where a consumer MUST go in order to maintain their account, get their email, look at meters, etc.
Today, ALL data consumed is one flat rate as we know.. no one has an issue with that. However, now that people have the thought planted that someone wants to turn on a meter, everyone wants to start picking apart what they are going to pay for.
Again, it's funny, becuase there is not going to be metered billing.. this is a smoke screen distraction to get people occupied on something else while they make changes in other ares under your nose. You're the kitten and metered billing is the ball of yarn dangling over you right now.
I will also add that in the last 5 years, here on BBR, all these major disruptions that people have been worried about.. caps, etc. .. I've so far been correct on everyone. I am willing to put my name on the fact that metered billing won't happen. Caps and tiers? sure.. meters? No.
But, what's really going on right now is an attempt to raise the price of the monthly internet to make up for the impending loss and bleed of video and phone. If you don't believe me.. look at this as your example:
Cablevision introduces $99 100 mb line service. Look at the price and the speed. The price is the typical $99 price point they all want, and the 100mb gives you a pipe out to do as you please. IF they get the $99 internet customer, they've got the price point and you have the speed,.. be well! If you get the $99 internet AND you keep video and land line.. they win! Eventually, people will warm up to paying a higher price for internet again, oh, and love the speeds too.
They're just too afraid to simply raise the price of internet as they should have years ago slowly.. the problem is they raised Video, because they had to, thanks Hhollywood, and now the internet is harming their very core. Same said with telco with their core phone service.
This is just a massive mental PR campaign to get people opened to price increases. They are basically saying "prices are going to go up".. they beat people down enough with the fight, that sooner or later, people will just accept it as they always do. | |
Pingmeister
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker :your reply is block the ads its easy? what a joke and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth. So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads. The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible. Smoothwall = firewall + NAT + caching proxy + a lot more - »www.smoothwall.org/
Even if you don't block ad networks (I don't - people in my house want the ads), you save subsequent transfers of not just the ads, but also any cacheable static data. Over the past year or so, I have saved about %20 on overall data transfer, and web browsing in my house is phenomenal. When you see the level of very reliable performance you get, and the level of control you have, you may never go back to a home consumer type NAT router-firewall. My Sonicwall SOHO3 has been retired to emergency backup for some time now. | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| said by Pingmeister :said by DataRiker :your reply is block the ads its easy? what a joke and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth. So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads. The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible. Smoothwall = firewall + NAT + caching proxy + a lot more - » www.smoothwall.org/Even if you don't block ad networks (I don't - people in my house want the ads), you save subsequent transfers of not just the ads, but also any cacheable static data. Over the past year or so, I have saved about %20 on overall data transfer, and web browsing in my house is phenomenal. When you see the level of very reliable performance you get, and the level of control you have, you may never go back to a home consumer type NAT router-firewall. My Sonicwall SOHO3 has been retired to emergency backup for some time now. This is so utterly ridiculous its retarded. Do you think even less than 1% of consumers have the know how to do this?
The fact that its even suggested proves my point. | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker :YAds are way too small (not true, by the way) Prove they are not too small. Give us examples and statistics to show otherwise.
What's the average ad byte size?
What's the average number of ads people see on a page?
What's the average number of pages people view in a month?
What's the average bandwidth consumed by ads by a person in a month?
What's the average person being billed per gigabyte past their "cap"?
Does the average bandwidth consumption by ads; 1) Pass the cap for the average person? 2) Add a sizable cost to the bill once the cap is passed?
Use your own favorite sites and habits to answer the questions, even if you aren't average, and show us how much it will cost YOU. | |
-
|
