French ISP Free Blocks All Ads to Piss Off Google Consumer Group Concern Results in Government Wrist Slap Already under investigation for slowing down YouTube streams, French ISP Free is also now taking heat for blocking -- advertisements? Free recently announced that the ISP would start blocking advertisements for subscribers, requiring that users opt in if they want to view ad content. The blocking actually takes place courtesy of a firmware update to the company's DSL modems. While Free has been rather disruptive to French incumbent ISPs, they've also been somewhat of a brat on the network neutrality front, joining a chorus of European telcos who believe that companies like Google should pay for their network infrastructure upgrades. The shuttering of ads appears to be less about helping consumers and more about kicking Google in the digital crotch. Consumer advocates like John Bergmayer at Public Knowledge argue that it's a slippery slope, and that even while consumers don't like ads, an ISP injecting itself into the content stream is just a bad idea: ISPs should be wary of getting in the content-blocking business. As journalist Guillaume Champeau pointed out on Twitter, once you start blocking one kind of content (ads), people are going to start to ask you to block The Pirate Bay. Or hate speech. Or blasphemy. Or maybe content that "supports terrorism"....
Given both Free's anti-net neutrality policy stance, and its history as a maverick player, its decision to start blocking ads (such as those from Internet heavyweight Google) becomes a bit less surprising. But blocking ads is still blocking content and it's not something ISPs have any right to do. Not only does Free set a dangerous precedent, it makes a choice that should be within the user's control. What's Free's logic here? Company engineers really could just be misguidedly trying to do a good thing for users, not understanding that ISPs don't belong in the middle of the information superhighway. However, given the ISP's previous attacks on network neutrality it's more likely that Free is trying to exert pressure on ad companies, hoping they'd be willing to help fund Free network infrastructure in exchange for being whitelisted. Whatever Free's reasoning, their actions resulted in the French government stepping in today to demand that Free stop blocking ads. "This kind of blocking is inconsistent with a free and open Internet, to which I am very attached," said Fleur Pellerin, France's minister for the digital economy,
|
 | | Lowers bandwidth usage! Sounds like the French have the right idea! | |
|  | | | | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Lowers bandwidth usage! said by r81984:An ISP has no right to block anything except things that are known to be viruses or bot nets.
The end user can block whatever they want to.
Ads, even served from google, have been known to contain malicious content, not to mention that it lowers their overall bandwidth usage of the customer. Look at it this way. With a site like facebook loading with all the ads in tact, its getting to be over 4MB. With ads blocked, its around 1MB. 3MB of ads to a 1MB page is stupidly much, and its no surprise they are blocking ads, probably to cut down on data usage. | |
| | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Lowers bandwidth usage! said by Chubbysumo:said by r81984:An ISP has no right to block anything except things that are known to be viruses or bot nets.
The end user can block whatever they want to.
Ads, even served from google, have been known to contain malicious content, not to mention that it lowers their overall bandwidth usage of the customer. Look at it this way. With a site like facebook loading with all the ads in tact, its getting to be over 4MB. With ads blocked, its around 1MB. 3MB of ads to a 1MB page is stupidly much, and its no surprise they are blocking ads, probably to cut down on data usage. Adware BS while "malicious" in some ways is fine. Its your browser that allows those ads to work like they do.
The ISP should not be blocking (besides known viruses/botnets) anything unless it is initiated by the end user.
ISPs need to be neutral.
There is nothing wrong with the ISP making a feature that the end user can turn on to block ads.
The ISP should not be blocking by default.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Agreed. By exerting so much control over the router, it's really their side of the network and not the customers. What they should do to stay "clean" is ship new routers with this configuration, but not reach in and change existing systems. They'll still have a large number of people who don't change router settings. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Frenchie :Sounds like the French have the right idea!
Hope you enjoy having to pay subscription to every site you go to in the future. No one is putting a website on the internet for the hell of it. They do it to make money. Even THIS site. You can either allow ads and get free access or pay a subscription. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Lowers bandwidth usage! said by BF69:said by Frenchie :Sounds like the French have the right idea!
Hope you enjoy having to pay subscription to every site you go to in the future. No one is putting a website on the internet for the hell of it. They do it to make money. Even THIS site. You can either allow ads and get free access or pay a subscription. Or you could make a better site that people want to be a part of, and would be happy to support. I am part of several ad free torrent sites that get support by user donations. if you don't make a shitty site, people want to use it. The other half is that on site ads are getting just as obnoxious as the popups of the late 90s and early 2000s, and look what we did with those popups. | |
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by BF69:Hope you enjoy having to pay subscription to every site you go to in the future. No one is putting a website on the internet for the hell of it. They do it to make money. Even THIS site. You can either allow ads and get free access or pay a subscription.
Or use Adblock and never see the ads. I didn't even know Facebook had ads until I accidentally left adblock off and visited the site. I wondered WTF happened. | |
|
|  dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
·Comcast
| It doesn't really lower bandwidth usage unless Google stops sending the ads. As it is, the ad has to be read before it can be blocked. Might lower in-network bandwidth but that doesn't cost the ISP much if anything.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | |  sivranOpera ex-patPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Lowers bandwidth usage! Actually, the ad doesn't get transmitted, because the browser never requests it. | |
|
| Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | said by Frenchie :Lowers bandwidth usage!
No it does not. if you read the article, the blocking happens on the Modem itself with a custom firmware.. This means all the AD data is still sent to your modem to digest, then block. So you get all the bandwidth usage of those blocked ADs since it was still sent through the interwebs, to your ISP's network, then to your modem.
it saves you nothing. | |
| | | sivranOpera ex-patPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Lowers bandwidth usage! No, the ad never gets requested, and thus never gets downloaded. | |
|
|  antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4 | Don't give up like in the past.  | |
|
| | Just block Googles services to free. Leave up a message whenever people try to access things like youtube or gmail for a a awhile explaining the situation and tell people to go to another ISP.
if free wants to play troll toll hardball.. | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Just block Googles services to free. So Google should stoop to Free's level? I thought Google "does no evil." Google should file a complaint with France and the EU. Petty tit-for-tats isn't the answer. Legally squashing what Google believes to be injustices is the correct, longterm action, establishes precedence, and prevents a potential "arms race". | |
| | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Just block Googles services to free. said by openbox9:So Google should stoop to Free's level? I thought Google "does no evil." So post a message: Google operates almost all it's services for free because advertising pays for those costs. As your ISP has unilaterally decided to block those ads without our or your previous consent, we are unable to offer the service for free.
There's a difference between "does no evil" and "deciding not to operate a service without some type of compensation." | |
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Just block Googles services to free. Did you read the rest of my post? | |
| | | | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Just block Googles services to free. said by openbox9:Did you read the rest of my post?
»www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/techn···all&_r=0
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
| | On one hand.... Not sure how I feel about this.
On one hand I think there is nothing wrong with them doing this being they are providing a service and giving the users the option to opt in if they want them. It it not like they are outright blocking them and the user's have no options and have to pay extra to get them which would be a violation of net neutrality principles.
On the other hand, if they are going to white-list a company because they are willing to pay to have their data delivered to the consumer I believe they have crossed the net neutrality line and thus this should not be allowed and they should be fined accordingly.
Then you have the content providers themselves. What if Google, YouTube and all those other sites that rely on ad revenues decide to block Free's IP block and thus makes their network less desirable for consumers? I bet the websites would win this fight. | |
| | | | Re: On one hand.... Having ISPs altering [my delivered] website pages is not something I want, regardless of the reason.
However, having an ISP provide a customer with a desirable feature can only be a good thing--within reason.
Lastly, it's not like someone who wants such a feature was ever going to click-thru anyway, so ads might as well not be there (and if the customer wants to authorize the ISP to alter his/her webpages... meh, not my concern).
("Three-handed" arguments are 50% better than the two-handed variety, eh? )
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
| | | | | Re: On one hand.... But such a feature can be had with Adblock Plus with relative ease. Is there any reason for an ISP to block ads? I honestly can't see that it would even work that well being placed in the modem, but perhaps I would be surprised. | |
| | | | | | Re: On one hand.... The only thing I want my ISP/router/modem doing is delivering packets--unaltered. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile--this is half-way toward replacing other ads with their own (but if others want it then that's their business). False-positives aside, I trust an ISP to look out for itself first and its customers, at best, second or, more likely, not at all. They only need to do one thing--provide the service I'm paying for (Internet access--aka dumb/dumber/dumbest pipe).
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
| | | | | | said by silbaco:But such a feature can be had with Adblock Plus with relative ease. Is there any reason for an ISP to block ads? I honestly can't see that it would even work that well being placed in the modem, but perhaps I would be surprised.
Ads can also be blocked with a decent host file instead of some stupid, slow me down even if only minimal, add on!
Man! I wish Charter would implement this "feature"
I'd LOVE to kick Google in the digital crotch!! 
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by silbaco:Is there any reason for an ISP to block ads? I honestly can't see that it would even work that well being placed in the modem, but perhaps I would be surprised.
With the way free operates, I would guess that the sheer volume of data wasted on ads for their entire customer base is quite a bit, and they would save quite a bit in peering if they cut out the ads. | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Skippy25:On one hand I think there is nothing wrong with them doing this being they are providing a service and giving the users the option to opt in if they want them.
The problem here is that blocking is being defaulted in the router, where very few customers have the brains or interest in going in to the router to change to opt-in.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. | |
| | | | | Re: On one hand.... They wouldn't do that anyway. They would call the ISP. | |
| | |  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by Linklist:The problem here is that blocking is being defaulted in the router, where very few customers have the brains or interest in going in to the router to change to opt-in. Ads and other intrusive garbage should be opt-in by default. I block all ads everywhere. I wouldn't mind if add-blocking were the default as it would relieve me of the need to actively block ads/ad-servers/trackers..... I don't know anyone who would complain about the lack of ads, and having to turn them on. I think most folks would see the lack of ads as a benefit.
There really should be CHOICE. I choose to financially support sites I use when I have the CHOICE to do so, like here on dslr.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
| | | | | | | | | | Although I see what you mean, ads do essentially finance the internet. In this economy, there are very few who would finance any of the websites they visit. Even fewer finance more than a couple. The amount of websites available would take a drastic dive if they relied on donations alone. | |
| | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: On one hand.... said by silbaco:Although I see what you mean, ads do essentially finance the internet. In this economy, there are very few who would finance any of the websites they visit. Even fewer finance more than a couple. The amount of websites available would take a drastic dive if they relied on donations alone.
Doesn't that say there is more trash out there than stuff people deem valuable? What's wrong with a free-market approach? If it's worth something people will pay, if not? Take out the trash. I don't think quantity over quality serves anyone well.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by TamaraB:said by Linklist:The problem here is that blocking is being defaulted in the router, where very few customers have the brains or interest in going in to the router to change to opt-in. Ads and other intrusive garbage should be opt-in by default. I block all ads everywhere. I wouldn't mind if add-blocking were the default as it would relieve me of the need to actively block ads/ad-servers/trackers..... I don't know anyone who would complain about the lack of ads, and having to turn them on. I think most folks would see the lack of ads as a benefit. There really should be CHOICE. I choose to financially support sites I use when I have the CHOICE to do so, like here on dslr. So people who make websites should work for free? Do YOU work for free? You either put up with ads, pay for access or LEAVE. that's the way I see it. YOU don't work for free. Don't expect others to do so. No such thing as a free lunch. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: On one hand.... said by BF69:So people who make websites should work for free? Do YOU work for free? You either put up with ads, pay for access or LEAVE. that's the way I see it. YOU don't work for free. Don't expect others to do so. No such thing as a free lunch.
I take issue with this, because there are many sites that are user supported with donations. If you make a site so shitty that your sites userbase does not even want to support it, I think you need to rethink your strategy. While there is no such thing as free anything, intrusive ads, which are more frequently containing hidden iframes and malicious links, and drive-by downloads, and malware in general, I do not feel bad about blocking ads. Do you remember popups? those were there to support sites, and when they got out of hand, all web browsers blocked them, and guess what, those sites that the users liked survived. In-site advertisements are starting to go the way of the popup. First they were discreet, barely noticeable, and on topic to the site. Then, they started getting funny and more in volume. Then, they got sounds and flashing, and even more in volume. Now, some sites are so littered with popunders and in site ads, the sites actual content is hidden. If you need to hide your sites content behind ads, you need a new strategy. I will not even visit sites that claim to be ad supported and won't let me on if I have AB+ and NS running. fuck them, they don't want my potential business, then I won't bother. | |
| | | | | | | I would be willing to unblock ads if they stopped tracking me and did not put any animated or annoying ads in web pages. If I'm watching a video I'm perfectly fine with a short video ad.
Deal?
No? You're just greedy then. I will continue to block ads. Sites with good content will be whitelisted if they request it. Even then, I have bitten by malware so I will reblock if malware is served through ads.
Blocking ads is legal, ethical, and moral. | |
| | | | | | | Heartily agree with BF69. People you can't have everything YOUR way. People just don't finance website expenses out of the goodness of their heart. Ads are a means to finance the Internet, either put up with ads spend some of your time and money to block ads, ignore them or put up with the impact upon your resources. The alternative is to PAY for access/data/information whenever you visit a site. I would venture to guess the Internet would collapse if it had to reply on users to directly pay for access to sites. I for one do not want to regress back to the day of having to FTP information from a server somewhere over a telephone line modem. | |
| | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by BF69:said by TamaraB:said by Linklist:The problem here is that blocking is being defaulted in the router, where very few customers have the brains or interest in going in to the router to change to opt-in. Ads and other intrusive garbage should be opt-in by default. I block all ads everywhere. I wouldn't mind if add-blocking were the default as it would relieve me of the need to actively block ads/ad-servers/trackers..... I don't know anyone who would complain about the lack of ads, and having to turn them on. I think most folks would see the lack of ads as a benefit. There really should be CHOICE. I choose to financially support sites I use when I have the CHOICE to do so, like here on dslr. So people who make websites should work for free? Do YOU work for free? You either put up with ads, pay for access or LEAVE. that's the way I see it. YOU don't work for free. Don't expect others to do so. No such thing as a free lunch. Now if only Ads where not a total security risk to pretty much any windows machine. And where nice and simple rather than being noisy and flashing people would be less likely to block them.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by BF69:So people who make websites should work for free? Do YOU work for free? You either put up with ads, pay for access or LEAVE. that's the way I see it.
All I am saying is I should have the option to pay and not see the ads. That option is rare. I object to being forced to adhere to a one-sided approach. Websites which can not support themselves by the value of their content, just like any other "product" should fail.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
| kevinds
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | That is my concern,
If Free is blocking all ads, if I pay Free money, will my ads then be unblocked, regardless if the user wants all ads blocked.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. | |
|
| | Block the Google I have blocked all of Google's ads for the last 3 years on my 3K user network. Small potatoes to Google. They wronged me a while ago and I haven't forgotten. It's petty, I know. | |
|  Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | I got mine... Everyone else can kiss my arse.
That's pretty much what it's coming down to, ya greedy gits!
--
I'm a son of a gun... | |
| Brisk
join:2003-07-11
Colorado Springs, CO | I don't block ads... Because I realize it "pays" for a site.
But spying on me without my knowledge and/or without disclosure is a different matter. Any information someone has on me I should be allowed to see.
Facebook and others don't think so, with their private marketing databases that keep your own information a secret from you.
Even Google does it at some level, they just call it "personalization" (which is code for "pushing objective content to the bottom of your search results").
In short:
Analytic/spying/"personalization" blocking = good, Ad blocking = bad.
They should block analytics at a network level, not ads.
They would still be doing users a favor, and wouldn't have nearly as much backlash. | |
| | | Free is correct... There is nothing free about Google. They make an average of $6500/person/yr. That is nothing to sneeze at. And considering they are riding on the ISPs (Gmail, Chrome, Search engine, Analytics, Adrevenue...) for their income, makes you wonder if the Kansas Fiber project was about something else they plan on achieving...
--
Splat | |
|  RWSI
join:2012-11-27
Albuquerque, NM
·Roadrunner Wirel..
| Blocking???? Blocking ads, you have got to be kidding. Google still gets paid by the one buying ad space on the Google search even if they don't show up.
It comes down to being pointless and Google still wins.
Google in return could not post any French websites. It works both way readers. | |
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | Could be an interesting way to make money. Block the ads so you don't have to carry adblockers. I could see the potential. | |
| | |
| |
|
|
·