European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google
from the this-is-really-dumb dept
So things just keep getting stranger and stranger online. A bunch of mobile operators are apparently planning to start automatically blocking all mobile ads. Now, for those of you who hate ads online, this might seem like a good thing, but it is not. If you want to disable ads on your own, that should be your call. In fact, as we've noted before, we think people on the web have every right to install their own ad blockers, and we find it ridiculous when people argue that ad blocking is some form of "theft."But this is different... and this is dangerous.
As the reports make clear, this move has nothing to do with actually protecting the public from malicious or annoying ads... and everything to do with the mobile operators hoping to shake down Google.
The plan – which would be devastating to companies reliant on advertising – is not limited to a single European network. Its apparent aim is to break Google’s hold on advertising.And, the clear plan is to then go to Google and say "give us money or else":
The FT report says that “an executive at a European carrier confirmed that it and several of its peers are planning to start blocking adverts this year” and will be available as an “opt-in service” however they are also considering applying the technology across their entire mobile networks.
The unnamed European carrier in the Financial Times article is reportedly planning to target Google and block its ads to force the company into giving up some of its revenue.The companies are using a product called Shine, which has a big bullshit claim on its page that it "champions the consumer's rights to control mobile ads." If that were the case it would be offering the tool to consumers. It's not. It's selling to big service providers, and then letting those service providers spy on all of your surfing in order to remove the ads.
This should be a serious concern for anyone using a service that signs up for Shine. Even if it's an "opt-in" offering, what the company is really doing is a form of deep packet inspection and blocking your mobile internet from acting the way it should. In other words, this looks like a net neutrality violation on a large scale.
As we've pointed out in the past, the broadband providers aren't stupid. They know that if they go for a direct plan of blocking or degrading apps you like, it gets people angry. So they look for ways to break net neutrality that look like they're doing the consumer favors -- things like zero rating, and now this. But that's not what's happening at all. This is all just the exact same plan as many broadband providers have had for years: figure out a way to pressure Google into coughing up some of its revenue, not by earning it, but by creating a mess for the company.
And, in the process, it's causing a mess for users by mucking with their internet connections, doing deep packet inspection, and blocking content.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blocking, europe, mobile ads, net neutrality
Companies: google, shine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You know, I'm no expert but wouldn't this go against any law or at least regulations? I mean, it sounds awfully like a collusion. It would be like an electricity company deciding to arbitrarily cut the consumer energy unless he decided to give them part of their revenue on top of paying the bill. This is how criminals operate: pay up or we destroy you.
this looks like a net neutrality violation on a large scale
Not that it isn't already being violated like there was no tomorrow, eh?
Hope Google give them a judicial nightmare if they try to extract any cash they clearly don't deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, that's a pretty recent phenomenon you know? We shouldn't need to remind Europe just how seriously !@#$ed up it's been for quite a few centuries now. I'm real glad they managed to sort out all that crap they had going on, but that the US is recently into it too shouldn't be a surprise, nor unexpected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You only have to look at all of the stupid regulations on things that you can import into the country. Kinder Suprise eggs anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh right, they dont exist anymore.
This approach is bad but something has to be done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, im not sure how giving ISP's a cut of Google's revenue 'does something' about the supposed lack of competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Seriously though, this is how the system is supposed to work. People voted with their wallets (or eyeballs), they prefer Google. Some middling wireless executives shouldn't be ableto prevent us from "voting". They shouldn't be allowed to pick the winners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
You do realize that those are not actually independent search engines, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must do something for the children!
Was it we need to do something about Google's large and ever expanding market share or was it should we do something about mobile ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "But something has to be done".
It is the "People" that choose to use Google that controls how many times they use Google to search, which then controls which webvertising agency websites choose to use.
It's the people making a choice that impacts / controls all of this.
If you don't want Google to have the "power" which it doesn't have really, then stop using google for searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I use their competition multiple times daily, and have been for years. How is it you've managed to ignore their existence? Blind, deaf, and stupid?
About what, and why? I'm sticking out my tongue and twiddling my fingers in my ears making faces at you. That's something. Feel better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And then there was something about Torquay...
And it was much more fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh right, they dont exist anymore."
You're right, if you create your own fictional universe based on a single lie, almost any argument makes sense!
Perhaps that's the real issue with people around here. We're discussing the finely granular issues that come with the real world, when it's so much easier to invent a reality to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are at least a dozen companies in the mobile ad space that have annual revenue of $100 million or more. Sure they are small compared to Google as a whole, but they are players in the mobile market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mission creep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mission creep
This is why I don't buy the USA conservative argument that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because shortly after, some guy will marry his goat."
If we must create laws, and we dislike step 2, then let's create laws that prohibit step 2, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Google directly funds Masnick.
That's not an accusation, it's stating a fact. Take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there's Google stated as sponsor with logo. Any accusation is from your conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
To be honest, though, I wager this is not going to make it past a legal challenge or two, given the coordinated nature of the move. All that's needed is a demand to Google for revenue money in writing and that could end up very badly for the wireless networks in question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait for the malicious and intentional theft charges are filed against the Cell Companies
Whether they portray it that way or not, when they block webvertisements for their users, they are intentionally and maliciously stealing from the web site owners.
Way to shoot yourself in your wallets dumb asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Google directly funds Masnick.
That's not an accusation, it's stating a fact. Take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there's Google stated as sponsor with logo. Any accusation is from your conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Mike does not argue the point you bring up because it is not the position he is holding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
By my count, I'm now forty-five years in as a taxpayer supporting by funding all the wonderful things my governments have been up to. That does not mean I ever intended any of that ever going to you. Correlation is not causation. I imagine Google would appreciate me standing up for them. I don't care what Google thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given Shine's ties to Israeli intelligence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like when my library's web filter blocked NOAA's website repeatedly? Even while it let through some of the funniest scatological humor from the Onion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like all the other attempts by European countries to get "their due" from Google...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the European web site?
You block Google's Ads, and the first person you are hurting are the web sites that display them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the European web site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Win win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Win win!
Good move. not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple of points
Second, I haven't seen anyone mention SSL. It would seem that if all websites were 100% SSL (as Google and most security folks recommend), it would make this process a lot harder.
Third, am I the only one that suspects that if the ISPs actually block the Google adds, they will not remove them, but REPLACE them with their own (without payment to the site that generated the traffic)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of points
In the end it is too messy and Google would have too much legal standing in the US courts...which is where european ISPs don´t have the stomach to weather. Because US and European ISP/mobile providers have to share so many quantifiable resources/information/data; not to mention dialcodes and VoIP pricing and regulations, that they would never (and probably have never thought this portion out) fight a battle like this on American judicial soil, they will NEVER win. The impending regulatory, not to mention monetary sanctions for the ISP´s responsible would be too heavy to take. I don´t think they have thought this out.
There are two reasons why you won´t see US isp´s attach themselves to this.
1: they are smart enough not to cross Google...for fear of being shutout of technological advances.
2: The largest US isp´s don´t need to shake down Google, they are diversified enough in data and voice, they see that at any second Apple and Android could take the side of the people, isolating any greedy ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What other content will they unilaterally modify?
This brings up a few questions:
- By blocking the ads on my site, the ISPs are modifying the content of my site against my wishes and against the wishes of my readers. What other content will they be allowed to modify? If they don't like a story I publish, do they get to block that, too?
- What's to stop the ISPs from domain-blocking just ads? Can they domain-block the websites for competing ISPs? If an ISP is also owned by a media company, can they domain-block Netflix, Hulu, or other alternative media sources?
- If my ad revenue drops to the point where I'm losing money, can I file a complaint against the ISPs and get some of my money back?
- On a related note, does this mean I could use the ISDS provisions of some free trade agreements to force the ISPs to either undo this or to just cut me a check?
And I see products like AdBlock as the reader side of this; the reader is explicitly delegating the selection of content to the browser plug-in, and that's 100% okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm convinced all these whiners are just peed at the price Google commands, and if G really wanted to shut them up, they could offer them a few thousandths of a cent less for ad prices and they go away gleefully licking their chops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People hate Google, Mike. Go get a new job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everything is hated by somebody. Judging by their popularity and success, not many people actually hate Google. So you're in a special little club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>Also, im not sure how giving ISP's a cut of Google's revenue 'does something' about the supposed lack of competition.
So far as I can see, this will harm competition. How does giving the entrenched monopolist yet another revenue stream help foster competition among ISP's?
Oh...sorry, ISP's aren't SUPPOSED to have competition, it's an unconscionable intrusion on their inalienable business model.
Now all that remains to emmanantize the eschaton is for governments to outlaw SSL, to protect the public from rogue business websites (and, of course, terrorists, child pornographers, and, worst of all, music sharers.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This story is about Europe, where I understand they don't have a problem with entrenched monopolist ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's also about mobile, where there's generally less competition. Although most areas have at least 3 or 4 competitors, some do have a history of colluding. If, say, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone all decide to do this, your choices are suddenly very, very limited even if there are one or two or major competitors for you to choose from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal?
To find the ads they have to go through all your traffic which means they read/check everything you receive until they find the ad(s). This in my opinion is in violation of data protection / privacy of communication.
After some yahooing/binging/googling I found this view of the EU
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/net-neutrality-challenges
Paragraph: Privacy issues
"Moreover, the content of communications is protected by the right to confidentiality of correspondence, which is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 7 and Article 8)."
I might misinterpret this section but to me this sounds like the ISPs are not allowed to read your packets and that the DPI they apparently want to do might be against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be good
Just start forcing certain services to require adds. If adds are being blocked, you tube service degrades, or stops, when customers complain, just tell them that it's their carriers fault.
Alternately just have Google set up all data traffic to be encrypted. If the carrier wants to do DPI, they need to decrypt first, and that would be expensive if at all possible. That would also fuck with data retention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This should be good
Job done. That´s why Google isn´t worried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They also believe that reported comments are gospel truth.
So please report this comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISP liability
Be interesting to see if they try to have their cake and eat it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]