[lightspeed2398]

Three have partnered with some company and have announced they're blocking mobile ads at the network level. Interesting. http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/201...l-ad-blocking/

[moox]

Sounds like the sort of thing that should at least be opt in - less likely to pee off the advertising industry that way

[David_Stephens]

I hope this measure will cut down on the number of "poisioned" ads that pop up all sorts of porn or pay by phone scams.
A number of sites seem to be suffering from this and are appearently innocently hosting the benine-looking ads that cause all sorts of pop up, redirects or pop unders.

[aurichie]

I predict publishers will respond by blocking three users from their websites.

[Gort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aurichie

I predict publishers will respond by blocking three users from their websites.

Then maybe Three could redirect their users to the site's competitors with less obnoxious ads. (Note the wink.) The proposal, as far as I can see, is to block ads that impact on "customer experience", not all ads. It might encourage some sites to consider their adverts' impact and tweak it, rather than just block a large network that has potential revenue.

Not that I fully agree with this move, unless it's opt in. I don't tend to like the Internet being "sanitised" outside of my control, but I do believe that the option should be there for those who want it. The danger is that once you start blocking adverts, then you might start trying to widen the scope.

[Thine Wonk]

Of course it will be configurable, they say it will be in the press release "designed to give customers control over what they are subjected to."

It may not even be the default, it might be opt in by a radio button in MyThree.

[jonmorris]

An ad blocker from a company that the owner of Three invested in. That may block ads that make sites money (not all are intrusive pop up video playing malware inflicted ads) and potentially insert ads from Three, which will then earn a slice of the revenue.

Sounds like a great idea!

[binary]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

An ad blocker from a company that the owner of Three invested in. That may block ads that make sites money (not all are intrusive pop up video playing malware inflicted ads) and potentially insert ads from Three, which will then earn a slice of the revenue.

Sounds like a great idea!

Quite the declaration of war from Three!

I can see the possibility of legal challenges regarding this... especially if alternative ads are inserted.

[jonmorris]

We're not quite as in to the net neutrality thing here, but I've seen some of the concerns on social media - including some anger from sites that rely on ad revenue and are already suffering from ad blockers. And now this.

[aurichie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

We're not quite as in to the net neutrality thing here, but I've seen some of the concerns on social media - including some anger from sites that rely on ad revenue and are already suffering from ad blockers. And now this.

This will probably go as well and last as long as previous attempts by Internet Service Providers to insert themselves in the relationship between publisher and reader. I'm pretty sure BT tried to do something similar in the past for example.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aurichie

This will probably go as well and last as long as previous attempts by Internet Service Providers to insert themselves in the relationship between publisher and reader. I'm pretty sure BT tried to do something similar in the past for example.

This will likely be opt in though, at the user's choice.

[aurichie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

This will likely be opt in though, at the user's choice.

It certainly should be.

If they are looking to use this as a means to generate additional revenues, something that has been attempted in the past, then I'd think they'll want everyone opted in by default.

[jonmorris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aurichie

It certainly should be.

If they are looking to use this as a means to generate additional revenues, something that has been attempted in the past, then I'd think they'll want everyone opted in by default.

They could easily make it opt in, but sell it in such a way that everyone will opt in.

When you sign up, all it needs is for Jackson to talk about how ads suck, use up data, slow down connections etc, and people will tick the box/say yes to the salesperson. Job done.

Three can then talk about the incredible take up of this 'voluntary' service, and that people can opt out whenever they want. Maybe by having to phone up or write in...

[lightspeed2398]

I don't like adverts, who does, but they are necessary to fund a lot of the content we have on the internet today, it's not free to run a website. There are a lot of annoying adverts that completely ruin a web experience (looking at you Digital Spy) but this kind of response by Three won't solve any problems, the users who aren't having ads blocked will presumably get even more to make up for the shortfall, Three may get challenged in court and publishers and writers suffer.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aurichie

I predict publishers will respond by blocking three users from their websites.

Exactly.

Though obviously both networks and web companies would like to sell EXCLUSIVE access, as in buy/contract me to receive X or Y.

They want rid of net neutrality.

[CheshireBumpkin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightspeed2398

I don't like adverts, who does, but they are necessary to fund a lot of the content we have on the internet today, it's not free to run a website. There are a lot of annoying adverts that completely ruin a web experience (looking at you Digital Spy) but this kind of response by Three won't solve any problems,

I agree. It's the idiots running really intrusive ads that obscure the whole screen that have ruined it for everyone else. I don't mind 'normal' ads, but now use a ad-blocker universally to escape them all.

[Mark in Essex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Stephens

I hope this measure will cut down on the number of "poisioned" ads that pop up all sorts of porn or pay by phone scams.
A number of sites seem to be suffering from this and are appearently innocently hosting the benine-looking ads that cause all sorts of pop up, redirects or pop unders.

I'd 100% second this!

I've had it a couple of times now.

[Richard_T]

Sites such as Digital spy and intrusive pop up adverts with animation, sound etc drove me to add blockers in the first place.
I have no problem with old school static banner adds, and in some cases if the adds are of interest and have offered a product at a good price i have responded to them.
The rise of add blocking lies at the feet of the advertising industry,if they kept to simple jpeg non animated no sound adds then there wouldnt be a problem

[Icaraa]

I also have no problem with ads, but the pop ups that you can't exit out of are counterintuitive ultimately. It happens on apps also, the AOL owned apps constantly launch the App Store to try and get you to download the William Hill or Sky Vegas apps, infuriating.

[SkipTracer]

There is an item about ad-blocking on the BBC Click program today with a mention also about the 3 network blocking at network level.

Apparently we will soon need a Ad-blocker to block the Ad-Blockers.

[jonmorris]

I think some companies think the next way to make money is to block existing ads and then insert 'approved' ads themselves - namely ads from companies that will go to the ad blocking firm.

These firms will of course claim to be filtering ads more effectively, protecting users and so on - but really just taking the money, while sites relying on ad revenue go out of business.

I think some people can already see what's going to happen, but others are blissfully ignorant and think this is a great thing for the consumer.

[Icaraa]

Oh I can see what's going on, but equally I think it's terrible the amount of crap on some sites. I'd like an ad blocker that only blocks annoying ads! But not one where the ad blocker maker gets money to white list certain ads.

[Thine Wonk]

I'd like that too actually, an ad blocking organisation funded by donations that allows good ads, but where content crosses the line and it interferes with the site, is overly distracting or is fake, cons or tricks in any way it's blocked.

I'd absolutely love that because then you're supporting websites and ad companies that do responsible advertising and blocking all the rogues. I think it would be socially acceptable to syndicate that list and have it as an option at network level, Adblock list plugins etc.

[CheshireBumpkin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

I'd like that too actually, an ad blocking organisation funded by donations that allows good ads, but where content crosses the line and it interferes with the site, is overly distracting or is fake, cons or tricks in any way it's blocked.

I'd absolutely love that because then you're supporting websites and ad companies that do responsible advertising and blocking all the rogues. I think it would be socially acceptable to syndicate that list and have it as an option at network level, Adblock list plugins etc.

That would work for me too. I'm happy to see advertising that is responsible, relevant, and appropriate. As the ads I see rarely fit that mould, I block universally and don't use sites that block me for blocking their ad clients...

[Wolfie_Smith]

Look at the backlash BT etc had over the whole phorm issue. Any DPI from three and I'll be off taking my contracts with me.