Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

French ISP Blocking Web Ads By Default

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the hasn't-yet-surrendered-to-pressure-from-ad-suppliers dept.

Advertising 317

New submitter GavrocheLeGnou writes "The french ISP 'Free.fr' is now blocking ads from Adsense and other providers by default for all its subscribers. The option can be turned off globally, but there's no whitelist (Google translation of French original). From the article: 'Because the service doesn’t offer a whitelist (contrary to Adblock, a service I’ve used for years), this means that it is an all or nothing choice, activated by default to block everything. And since it is not only internet, but TV and phone lines running through the FreeBox, it’s possible that, if left unchecked, Free could beginning blocking TV ads, or phone calls from known spam hotlines. While this seems like a potentially beneficial service, there’s no doubt that it’s biting at the heels of several sectors who rely on advertisement to make money, let alone the advertisers themselves who pay to reach an audience, and are blocked at the door.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Never Heard of Them (5, Funny)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 2 years ago | (#42481983)

They should advertise more on the internet.

Good. (1, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#42481993)

About bloody time, too. The Internet is not for advertising.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42482079)

The internet would still be a bunch of news groups if it wasn't for advertising: advertising spurred people to create and advance content and it's the #2 on how people make money off the internet... #1? Porn... which has tons more ads for more porn.

The problem isn't advertising, it's how some websites go about it in a less than straight forward manner and not so much anymore, but some used to be really annoying, like the recursive jscript ad pop-up.

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42482163)

The internet would still be a bunch of news groups if it wasn't for advertising.

I don't really know... are you arguing for or against ads? Your "threat" might be seen as a promise.

Re:Good. (3, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42482671)

The internet would still be a bunch of news groups if it wasn't for advertising.

I don't really know... are you arguing for or against ads? Your "threat" might be seen as a promise.

Nothing wrong with nostalgia, but only a Luddite could possibly see the expansion of news groups into what we have today as a BadThing(TM). Seriously, "there is no such thing as a free lunch", news groups in the early days were funded mainly by the taxpayer, advertising pays for the banquet of free content we now enjoy. If you have a better funding model for providing free content on the same scale as radio/TV/internet combined, we'd all like to hear it.

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42483107)

Most free content is shit. It's usually regurgitated, misleading, or false. Anybody who is willing to provide free information at a minor profit will be fine. You want good free content? It's all out there. Example Pubmed. The journals are all heading toward making papers free. Scientific American requires a subscription. The Economist requires a subscription. The New York Times. Getting the point? Anything worthwhile already requires a subscription and that which doesn't is going to be free anyway.

Only videos should have video ads. Text should have static ads.

If you need to survive by spamming me with ads, your content is most likely shitty. I've never found a site that had annoying ads which was worth my time.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483143)

Newsgroups in the early days were funded by institutions, not all of which were taxpayer funded. Corporations used the newsgroups too. Members essentially paid their own way.

Explain then why on pay cable television we're still subjected to ads? Every time there is an advertisement free medium the vultures swoop in to ruin it. If advertising is so great then why do the advertisers continually resort to dirty tricks? People are using ad blockers out of self defense against an active assault. Have a few small unobnoxious ads and people wouldn't mind. But fill up 2/3rds or more of a web page with junk ads that slows down your computer and internet then of course people are going to fight back.

What we have today is a bad thing. There is not the information future that was envisioned, instead if's lots of media being fed to a passive drooling audience.

Re:Good. (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42482307)

The internet would still be a bunch of news groups if it wasn't for advertising: ...

Like Wikipedia, you mean?

advertising spurred people to create and advance content

Ah, yes, we wouldn't have FaeceBook without advertising.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Terrasque (796014) | about 2 years ago | (#42482467)

While they don't have ads, they often have huge "Give us money!!" banners, which are just as annoying, if not more annoying than normal ads.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | about 2 years ago | (#42482849)

that was a real WTF comment. how is a polite plea showing up once in a blue moon more annoying than autoplaying videos, flashing banners and "you can skip this ad in 5 4 3 2 1" welcome pages?

Re:Good. (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#42482359)

I kinda miss the usenet. Those were the good old days. At least until the spammers arrived. And Scientology sporge in 2000.

An all-free no advertising internet might be a good thing. Kinda like a world with only FOSS computers, no Apple or Windows. Sure, the general public would miss their Twitter and Facebook but computer geeks would rejoice.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482569)

I kinda miss the usenet. Those were the good old days. At least until the spammers arrived. And Scientology sporge in 2000.

An all-free no advertising internet might be a good thing. Kinda like a world with only FOSS computers, no Apple or Windows. Sure, the general public would miss their Twitter and Facebook but computer geeks would rejoice.

Assuming there was anyone around to keep running the servers for free, of course.

I'm pretty damn certain there's a not-insignificant amount of computer geeks who depend an awful lot on services which today are nearly entirely ad-supported, geeks who would be shocked — SHOCKED, mind you — at the prospect of having to pay for those services on a "supposedly all-free internet". And these are the sorts of services which are a bit too big for the platonic ideal from decades ago of "one nerd hacking away in his basement" to support.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483309)

We're still paying today, sometimes a significant amount of money just to get internet connections. We're actually paying much more money today than we did 10 or 20 years ago. The advertisers are not paying for their ads out of their own pockets, they've figured out that other people will pay for the bandwidth necessary to send the ads out.

We get spam clogging our email, we have popups annoying us, we have our computers and networks being slowed down. I have to pay money when they send me a text message to my phone, I don't even answer my home phone anymore even though it rings 4 or 5 times a day since it's all telemarketers despite being on the no-call list. These people are evil and we shouldn't be making excuses for them.

If the advertisers are leeching off of all of us then I have no qualms putting up ad blockers and leeching off of them.

Re:Good. (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42482611)

I kinda miss the usenet.

Please add me to the list!

Me, too!

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483165)

And advertisement is essentially what killed off usenet. Even though it's still limping along inside Google there is no longer any information left. Because it's essentially free to churn out as many ads as wanted it was too easy to drown actual content.

Just wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482959)

As soon as you have convinced everyone that ads on the Internet is a good thing, the spammers will come knocking on your door asking for the same treatment.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483059)

Advertising should just be a side business, it's the overhead necessary to sell an actual product which is the core business. However it seems that too many advertisers want to treat it like the primary business. People talk about the advertising industry like it's a major manufacturing conglomerate.

The problem with ads on the net is that they don't behave. Advertising may be necessary for a product but they've gone out of their way to be obnoxious and rude. Animated picures and flash ads suck up noticeable amounts of processing time, the initial reason I went about blocking ads. They've abused windows pop ups. It bloats up the internet content without paying its way. Back with faxes ads used to tie up the lines and block actual information from arriving in a timely manner. Advertisers have essentially done everyone in the power to become hated. So of course customers want ad blocking in self defense. Sorry to all of you who make your living with advertising but war is hell and you're working for the enemy.

Re:Good. (1)

mattkrea (2795977) | about 2 years ago | (#42482117)

Frankly this is a little ignorant. The internet is not for any one thing. That is precisely why it is so powerful.

Re:Good. (3, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42482321)

Frankly this is a little ignorant. The internet is not for any one thing.

Yes, it is [youtube.com]

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482131)

Yes, everyone know that the Internet was made for porn!

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482155)

If your only, or biggest source of revenue is from advertising then you have a defective product and a bad business model.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42482295)

Say goodbye to google, youtube, Twitter, Slashdot, Facebook, Digg, Reddit, Gmail, Yahoo mail, drudge report, yahoo, bing, and probably a lot of others.

Im going to guess that sites in that list make up more than 50% of your web-usage by site-hit per day, and including youtube probably 80% of your web traffic.

But sure, they all have "bad business models", despite being some of the biggest sites on the internet.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482555)

there's a difference between advertisement and advertisement hosted by a 3th party. The latter is easy to block, the former isn't.

So yes, go ahead with blocking 3th party advertisements, even if all of it gets replaced by selfhosted adds at the very least pages will load faster due to not having to load js from half a dozen sites.

Re:Good. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42482583)

With the exception of the google sites, all of those use third party advertisement.

Re:Good. (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#42482709)

And I think the point is that they should stop.

If you want to have an ad on your site you should take responsibility for it. That doesn't mean you can't have an advertising company supply you with ads, but I'm getting google supplied adds on LordLimecat.com you're not taking responsibility for what you're showing me, or how that information is being used to track me across sites.

Admittedly, it's an idealistic pipe dream. But I think that's the point he's trying to make.

Re:Good. (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#42482853)

I don't mind ads...at all. Seriously. And I don't think most people care either.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42483241)

I guess in your world the best email service would have the most profitable and annoying ads.

Funny how it's quiet the opposite.

Re:Good. (1, Flamebait)

maxdread (1769548) | about 2 years ago | (#42482169)

Aye, instead the internet should be nothing but pay walls.

Your only options will be Geocities level free sites or to pay to see anything worth while.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482215)

Finding worthwhile information on the web was much, much easier before the rise of advertising. There were actual useful web sites on Geocities, rather than ten million sites full of scraped or made-up crap that exist solely to pull people in from search engines so they'll get advertising revenue.

Re:Good. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42482309)

Baloney, searching for information is tons easier today. I recall in my college days using Vivisimo to cluster search results to try to get more useful results; i havent done that in about 6 years because Google has gotten so much better at searching that its simply not necessary.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#42482565)

Weird. When I search on Google the first three million results are usually ad farms that have no bearing on what I was searching for, and then about ten million results in I find someone's personal web page with the information I actually wanted.

When did Google 'get so much better at searching'? Everything they've done in the last few years seems to have been designed to give me more and more unrelated results ('I'm going to give you results for what you searched for and for any word I think is vaguely similar, because you obviously don't know what you really wanted to search for'), and not the ones I actually want.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42483025)

Finding worthwhile information on the web was much, much easier before the rise of advertising.

I'm old enough that my son ran his own BBS in the late 80's, had access (via a university) to the internet before it was the internet, was studying for a CS degree when HTML was invented (didn't "get it" immediately, few people did). It's far from an exaggeration to say information has never been easier to find in the entire history of mankind, nor has there ever been so much information of both types, useful and useless. For people like me who used to loan from the non-fiction section of the library, the internet is like having the world's technical and scientific libraries at your fingertips. Sure it's not the jet pack I was promised, but it's a pretty good consolation prize.

Re:Good. (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42482751)

So you subscribe to all your content?

Day-um! (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#42482007)

The adblocking war just went nuclear!

I wonder what the media/advertising uber-cartel's response will be? "No media for you!"? Lawsuits galore?

I'm gonna pop some popcorn and pull up a comfy chair. This...could...be...AMAZING.

Re:Day-um! (2)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#42482177)

Ad-supported content sites can start blocking requests from free.fr pretty easily. Not sure how long this will last.

Not the ISP's problem (5, Insightful)

tchernik (2494258) | about 2 years ago | (#42482023)

The ISP gets its money by selling Internet access to his paying customers, not by allowing all the ad crap to sneak through.

Blocking the crap is just value added to their clients service IMHO.

I certainly wish there was such a convenient ISP service near home.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482103)

Blocking the crap is just value added to their clients service IMHO.

Until the websites the client visits are forced to shut down because they can no longer pay costs with ad revenue.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (0)

NemosomeN (670035) | about 2 years ago | (#42482265)

Unlikely. The more likely scenario is mass blocking of the ISP. After all, from a business perspective, if you make money from ads, this ISP's users contribute approximately nothing, and cost you money.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483341)

Most companies should make money from products, not the ads. Find another way to get knowledge of your products out without being obnoxious to your potential customers. If a company associates with such depraved people as internet advertisers then the company deserves to lose its customers.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#42483037)

So what? Since when is a business a good thing whose only source of revenue is advertising? Ever went to a store that gives away everything for free but forces you to watch lots of ads?

Re:Not the ISP's problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482109)

And those paying customers pay because there's stuff on the net they want to see. And a huge chunk of that is paid for by the ads that are being blocked.

It's self defeating and short sited.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482115)

And they probably save money by blocking all those ads no-one wants to see so they aren't wasting download bandwidth.

Still, it really shouldn't be done at the ISP level.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482319)

I'm all for it. One of the primary sources of intrusions are compromised ad servers serving up Web browser or add-on exploits.

Removing that security gap before the data gets to my machine, I'm all for.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (1, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42482965)

I dunno, I don't see this ending well. I assume a fair number of ad supported sites would block the ISP from accessing their sites, which, given such a block would also affect customers that are willing to see ads, would ultimately undermine the ISP as customers switch to other ISPs in droves.

Not that I don't understand the motive, ads have gone from bad to OK to bad to OK and now back to bad again with the ridiculous number of autoplaying HTML5 videos. But this probably isn't the solution.

Re:Not the ISP's problem (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483319)

I imagine a lot of customers actually asked the ISPs to block all the stuff they are not paying for.

A big win (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482031)

I would pay additional money for services like this, in the US. Maybe not for internet, since adblock does a fine job at preventing my consciousness from being polluted by bullshit. But for things like Hulu, or TV...

My wife watches Hulu when she wants to see something that I haven't set up to be auto-pirated with sickbeard/sabnzb/couchpotato. It amazes me the crap people will allow into their brains. "You could save fifteen percent on car..." "FUCK OFF, I'm already a Geico customer, WHY DO I HAVE TO HEAR THIS SHIT?!"

I won't pay for Cable TV but I probably would if I could get TV without advertising.

Yeah, yeah, the industry is driven by advertising, blah blah, guess what, I don't give a shit, totally not my problem, if they want my money, they can start by providing a service that I want. TV with ads? Do not want. I'll keep giving my money to a premium usenet provider, thanks.

Re:A big win (2)

NemosomeN (670035) | about 2 years ago | (#42482303)

I use Hulu and never see ads/annoying HEY YOU AREN'T WATCHING THE ADS screens. Maybe you're not trying hard enough. XBMC/Bluecop It's been a godsend, and I expect to appreciate it more now that nzbmatrix is gone.

Re:A big win: Adtrap (1)

Squiggle (8721) | about 2 years ago | (#42482979)

Checkout adtrap:
http://www.getadtrap.com/ [getadtrap.com]

You missed the kickstarter for it, but I think still available for pre-order?

As usual. (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#42482035)

If you are a water vendor and it begins to rain, you need a new business model.

Ad companies could get bankrupt? (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42482139)

I fail to see the downside.

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482219)

replace ad's with porn, and you can see the slippery slope.

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42482357)

As long as there is a competitor around, I'm all for it. Why not let the market sort it out? Let's see whether people prefer their internet with or without ads, with or without porn...

As long as it is neither mandated by law nor impossible to turn off, what's your problem with it?

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42482413)

I fail to see the downside.

replace ad's with porn, and you can see the slippery slope.

The down side of the porn becoming slippery? Well, that's an advantage so big it get's me all wet.

(ducks)

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 2 years ago | (#42482271)

easy: all sites that live thanks to advertising, even to good ones that provide valuable content and have not-too-obnoxious ads (arstechnica comes to mind), no longer make any money at all.

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482761)

this only kills adds hosted on 3th party servers, that's not the same as killing all adds

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482529)

It is not the job of ISPs to restrict the flow of information. Their job is to provide the conduit for information and let the users decide what they want to see or not.

Once ISPs decide they can and should tamper with the information flow, they have opened a huge can of worms.

ISPs are providers of a conduit, not editors of content!

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42483393)

These are advertisements, not information. Customers did not pay to get advertisements, they paid to get access to the internet! This ISP does have an opt-out so if a customer really does want to see ads then they can do so.

Advertisers have proven that they will not play fair or pay for their usage of the bandwidth, so we should not be making any excuses for them. Even with junk mail the sender has to pay for it, imagine if you had to pay for every piece of junk mail you got from the post office.

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | about 2 years ago | (#42482883)

To quote the master:
"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalization for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence."
Bill Hicks

Re:Ad companies could get bankrupt? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#42482891)

Because a certain ad company *google* makes my life (and those of others) far...FAR...better.

Porn Filters (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | about 2 years ago | (#42482229)

Hope we get these with our porn filters in the UK

There's another side to that story (5, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 2 years ago | (#42482261)

Free is a major French ISP, also just breaking into the mobile phone market with rock-bottom prices. They've always been at the forefront of the price war, and without them we probably still wouldn't have $40 ADSL with unlimited phone, TV..., nor $27/month for mobile with unlimited data/voice/texts, and no restrictions on VOIP, tethering... full net neutrality in fact. So up to now, they've undoubtedly been Good Guys.

They have a long-standing dispute with Google though, about who should pay for bigger tubes between their servers and YouTube, which is unusable at peak time for Free subscribers. Free have been advising their clients to use Dailymotion instead, and don't want to pay for extra bandwidth. Free users are very dissatisfied, and this is becoming a *major* issue.

The ad-blocking move, which seems right now to target mainly Google, is probably mostly a bargaining chip to get Google to pay for better YouTube access for Free.

Re:There's another side to that story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482381)

they can just use peering at the BGP level to make all that free with the eyeball networks. the telecoms and content networks are in all the same facilities. no need to charge anyone for anything. charging for bandwidth is like holding the groom hostage for a blowjob on his wedding night.

Re:There's another side to that story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482475)

They have a long-standing dispute with Google though, about who should pay for bigger tubes between their servers and YouTube, which is unusable at peak time for Free subscribers. Free have been advising their clients to use Dailymotion instead, and don't want to pay for extra bandwidth.

As I read it, the problem isn't limited bandwidth at Free or at Google, but only the line between those two. Isn't it possible to solve this using some proxy to move some of the traffic to other lines?
And can customers user proxies to boost their Youtube speed?

Re:There's another side to that story (2)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 2 years ago | (#42482579)

Free is a major French ISP,[...] and no restrictions on VOIP, tethering... full net neutrality in fact. [...] They have a long-standing dispute with Google though, about who should pay for bigger tubes between their servers and YouTube, which is unusable at peak time for Free subscribers. Free have been advising their clients to use Dailymotion instead, and don't want to pay for extra bandwidth. Free users are very dissatisfied, and this is becoming a *major* issue.

The ad-blocking move, which seems right now to target mainly Google, is probably mostly a bargaining chip to get Google to pay for better YouTube access for Free.

How is that net neutral?

Re:There's another side to that story (0)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#42482797)

They're French. They can be cheese eating surrender monkeys or resistance fighters but never neutral.

Increased efficiency. (3)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#42482289)

This probably cuts the ISP's network traffic in half.

There will be screams from advertisers. Tough. Nobody is forcing you to run a web site supported by third-party ads. This doesn't affect web sites that sell their own products, from Amazon on down. It doesn't affect search much, although it may impact Google's AdSense business. Bing; not so much. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, etc. don't run third party ads on their own sites. Facebook runs their own ads on their own site.

It might impact low-rent sites like Slashdot, bloggers who want to get paid for their blithering, and other minor annoyances. But the web can run just fine without third-party ads.

Even advertisers may benefit. About 80% of third-party ad clicks come from a small number of users, under 20%, who will click on anything and buy almost nothing. Many SEO experts advise their Google advertisers to opt out of the "Google content network" and just run ads that appear with search results. Search ads appear when someone is looking for the item of interest and likely to buy. AdSense ads are just noise.

Re:Increased efficiency. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482479)

Likewise, no one is forcing web sites to serve clients from thst isp. You don' t want ads? Fine, you don't get our service.

Re:Increased efficiency. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482717)

Deal! I'd rather not use your 'service' than deal with today's obnoxious ads (I'm looking at you 30-second commercials that blast full volume with no ability to control the volume). And if I *truly care* enough about your service, I'll pay a reasonable fee to access it.

Re:Increased efficiency. (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#42482917)

You already HAVE the choice to not see ads by not visiting my blog. Why the fuck do you need an ISP to make that decision for you?

Re:Increased efficiency. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42483071)

If you don't agree with the ISP, move to another. The theme here seems to be about choice, and you have the choice of another ISP.

What is the point if... (2)

zugedneb (601299) | about 2 years ago | (#42482297)

the injected ad can be instead injected at the sever? Done so the ad will become part of the actual content and adblock can do nothing about it...

it's a negotiation tool against google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482301)

Free.fr wants google to pay for the Youtube content going through its pipes. As google refused they went nuclear, quite a clever move thus dangerous for the net neutrality

Network Neutrality Violation (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#42482333)

While all the posts here so far are in favor of this move, it is a very bad thing, and not just for the publishers that depend on ad revenue. If my browser has requested data from the internet, by default the ISP's job is to faithfully forward those requests and the responses to me, not to selectively block, modify, or even inspect the packets I have sent. To do otherwise is a violation of network neutrality.

This is bad because it can be abused by the ISP to serve their goals, and not that of the user. For example, in this case the founder of Free, Xavier Niel, is also a partial owner of the newspaper Le Monde, and by some reports ads are not being blocked on that site, while they are on others. Other accounts give different results with ad blocking, so that may not be intentional, but regardless it is a good hypothetical example of why this can be a very bad idea. It is one thing if the ISP offers additional services that the user can opt-in to use, but very different if they require users to opt-out (many of whom may not even know/understand that the ISP is modifying their traffic).

Re:Network Neutrality Violation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482723)

While all the posts here so far are in favor of this move, it is a very bad thing, and not just for the publishers that depend on ad revenue. If my browser has requested data from the internet, by default the ISP's job is to faithfully forward those requests and the responses to me, not to selectively block, modify, or even inspect the packets I have sent. To do otherwise is a violation of network neutrality.

This is bad because it [...]

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I'm too busy joining in the nostalgia-filtered nerd circle-jerk featuring short-sighted selective historical memories of a time when the internet solely consisted of people who agreed with us and we didn't allow anyone in unless they agreed with our projects and our ideas! So to hell with you and your rational, critical thinking! LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA...

Re:Network Neutrality Violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42483085)

While all the posts here so far are in favor of this move, it is a very bad thing, and not just for the publishers that depend on ad revenue. If my browser has requested data from the internet, by default the ISP's job is to faithfully forward those requests and the responses to me, not to selectively block, modify, or even inspect the packets I have sent. To do otherwise is a violation of network neutrality.

This is bad because it [...]

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I'm too busy joining in the nostalgia-filtered nerd circle-jerk featuring short-sighted selective historical memories of a time when the internet solely consisted of people who agreed with us and we didn't allow anyone in unless they agreed with our projects and our ideas! So to hell with you and your rational, critical thinking! LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA...

me too

Re:Network Neutrality Violation (1)

ZoobieWa (513069) | about 2 years ago | (#42482741)

Do you also feel that spam filtering your email is a violation of net neutrality?

Re:Network Neutrality Violation (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#42482927)

The email is the service I'm using on the net. This is about net neutrality not email neutrality.

Hyperbole and baloney (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482839)

You can turn adblocking off. Versus a non-neutral net where you can't do a damn thing over how your ISP shapes your traffic. Big difference. Or would say Dish networks recent attempts to automatically remove ads is not neutral?

Like to confuse the issue, huh? I swear some of you people are just astroturfers with a brain. Half a brain though.

Re:Network Neutrality Violation (1)

citylivin (1250770) | about 2 years ago | (#42482951)

Yes yes, slippery slope. You are of course ideologically correct. This is the free market solution, when really we need government solutions to the scourge of advertising which blights our societies.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say! But I am curious, where I am from, there are often spam calls to my telephone, offering all sorts of prizes if i give all my information to them. Should the telco not try and block these calls for the benefit of society? I am just trying to say that there are some cases where a centralized authority making decisions on my behalf are warranted. You can always switch to another ISP if you dont like these guys rules, right?

I am just happy someone is trying to do something about advertising, which governments seem unwilling to do, despite the proven societal costs in terms of malnutrition, disease and over materialism, (among the many costs). It is brain washing after all, so in the end I cannot help but support this move. The practically of The Real World(tm) wins out over ideology on this one imho. Burn advertisers burn!

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482339)

It seems that at advertising based culture is willing to tolerate advertisements in exchange for content. Coming from a non advertisement based culture and based on what I've seen I'm prepared to consume free culture and do without the rest.

I like sharing what I do and sharing what others wish to share. I'm not interested contributing to... well whatever you call everything that isn't that. However they seem to get a bit bolshy when you say so.

TV ads and spam hotlines (1)

fatnickc (1259582) | about 2 years ago | (#42482349)

What would be the point of blocking TV ads? Unlike on web sites there's no other content when ads are being broadcast (some might say there's not very much content between the ads on most channels anyway...). And presumably TV channels would be much happier not to be available on Free than websites would, so it would likely backfire anyway. The spam hotline idea should be the default! Do ad companies really complain about people's evil spam filters on their email accounts?

Dear Slashdot, I have a major problem (4, Funny)

citylivin (1250770) | about 2 years ago | (#42482395)

My town recently passed a law blocking people from defecating in peoples yards and spitting in their faces at random. One can opt out of the new law (and continue being spat at) completely, however there is no whitelist for white listing positive spitters and defecators that I do want to receive spit from. This means that its either an all or nothing choice, activated by default to block everything.

While this seems like a potentially beneficial service, there's no doubt that it's biting at the heels of several sectors who rely on cleaning up shit and spit to make money, let alone the spitters and defecators themselves who try hard to eat and drink as much as possible to reach an audience, and are now blocked at the door.

Re:Dear Slashdot, I have a major problem (3, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#42482581)

"however there is no whitelist for white listing positive spitters and defecators that I do want to receive spit from."

Thanks to the internet I know such a whitelist would be a valued service in some quarters.

"who pay to reach an audience" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482427)

Which i have to pay as well to receive. Even if don't want their crap, it eats at my bandwidth cap, and if i go over, i have to pay actual cash just to get their garbage..

Large content providers can block too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482433)

It would be trivially easy for a large content provider (Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, etc.) to simply say "you block my ads, I block your customers" and proceed to block access from any IP addresses within this ISP's allocated range.

This would be far more interesting if the ISP in question had a significant user base (to the point where the game of chicken would have consequence for both parties).

A niche ISP such as this with a globally insignificant user base can't survive with such a policy in place unless their users don't care about accessing big media sites. They will hemorrhage users until they remove the ISP-level blocking feature and the large content providers unblock their IP block.

Re:Large content providers can block too (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 2 years ago | (#42483185)

And the ISP can setup a transparent proxy to twart that, it's users will notice a little bit of lag at most.

They're only blocking ads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482485)

Sites could still have sponsorships and/or ads without the ad-network, and the only way to block that is if the ad is in the same box all the time.
Big sites can afford to do that, small sites that just join the ad-network and can't find interested companies on their own will hurt.

We don't have a real answer for how to properly fund websites yet.

Could someone please provide the same service... (2)

boule75 (649166) | about 2 years ago | (#42482491)

... for paid DVDs?

I cannot help but feeling pissed of each time I buy one film and am forced to endure minutes of ads against pirating (But I even paid the bloody thing!) or for films I will not see or for violent films when the DVD contains a cartoon for the kids.

And have you noticed all those films on the walls for things you do not want nor ear about? They have been flourishing in Paris lately. They catch your eyes, because your eyes will look at moving things, however hard you try to ignore them. The ad industry has become a sheer nuisance.

Meanwhile, as a Free.fr subscriber, I am not so sure the move is smart, especially since it would be activated by default (one has to reboot the box to upgrade the firmware, and I do it twice a year or so, haven't done it yet).
I do accept some dose of advertisement on sites, but no flash by default, Flashblock is my friend. That suffices me up to now. Manwhile, I would appreciate Porn blocking, by default. All ads? Perhaps too bold a move.

The solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482509)

Opt in if you want ads

altering internet feed should be illegal (1)

jjbarrows (958997) | about 2 years ago | (#42482517)

I would not use an isp that thought they had the right to alter my free and unfettered access to the internet in a y way shape or form.

Complete saturation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482521)

The internet would be awesome without ads.

EVERYTHING EVER turns to crap once the advertising shows up and becomes a major player.

newspapers, radio, tv, cable tv, magazines, movies, dvds, the internet, my motherfucking phone with the spam sms and calls.

Fuck them and everything about those advertising assholes. Nobody wants that shit. We don't need that shit. And we WERE better off without it. Every single fucking time. Does nothing but drive people away. Everything you touch turns to shit and a chore to find the content thru the garbage.

It's just so bizarre we havent outlawed it yet. Instead of letting them ruin everything that comes along.

Sounds amazing (1)

waspleg (316038) | about 2 years ago | (#42482535)

Too bad Comcast doesn't offer packages like that...

VPN (1)

2Y9D57 (988210) | about 2 years ago | (#42482575)

Use a VPN. Don't let your ISP screw with your traffic.

Will the IP range be banned? (1)

fluor2 (242824) | about 2 years ago | (#42482783)

Not that I support it, but it shouldn't be much problems to stop delivering to the IP range from this ISP for french newspapers. It's really a short-lived story for the customers of this ISP.

A shot a Google? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42482807)

I assume this is some sort of attack on Google given they're the biggest advertiser on the internet. Does anyone know more about the reasoning behind this? I can't believe it's just to help their customers.

Speaking of Ads.. (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 2 years ago | (#42482851)

Offtopic.. mod me to oblivion.. but has everyone else noticed all the new ads on slashdot since the buyout? In Opera, I even get a popup download warning from some push file ad something.. the load time has gotten spam-crazy-3rd party-riffic.. and yes.. I have all the requisite add-ons.. I just watch the status bar going nuts while the page loads..

Re:Speaking of Ads.. (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#42483395)

No(Script), I haven't noticed them.

100% in favour of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482893)

As long as the end user gets the choice whether to use the service or not I'm 100% behind this. The internet is not "Web TV". It's not "Web newspapers". It's the internet. The user gets to decide what to see.

Don't like it ? Don't put your stuff on the internet. We won't miss you. Bye.

This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42482903)

...France is a 1st world country. Finally, they no longer have to endure the mockery and stand proud in
their 1st class citizenship with other world class countries in this world we live in.

What?

They didn't meat to?

Nevermind.

I hate to say it... (1)

Lacroman69 (1147269) | about 2 years ago | (#42483039)

But... Advertisement (Marketing) is what drives the (global) economy. The economy runs on marketing creating a "want" out of thin air which creates commerce. Everything else just supports that consumerism.

Even toilet paper is advertised (Charmin Bear Commercials, as an example) but it doesn't need to be because you need to wipe your *** everyday you stay alive to get that next thing you don't actually need. Same with toothe paste, electric bills, and *credit cards*... all things we may not want but *need* in western society, to at least maintain our current lifestyle. Food? You need so McD's actually gets a pass as they are trying to shift your pre-existing need in their favor. But if you want to enjoy your crappy McD's you better brush often and stock lots of toilet paper. If you are using a credit card to buy food, you are already a victim.

So, yeah, this seems like a great idea but on a large scale its going to disrupt economies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?