European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google

from the this-is-really-dumb dept

Mon, May 18th 2015 8:01am — Mike Masnick

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.

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.

And, the clear plan is to then go to Google and say "give us money or else":

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

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 7:16am

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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:07am

Do these plans apply to Google's competition too?
Oh right, they dont exist anymore.

This approach is bad but something has to be done
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beech, 18 May 2015 @ 8:07am

mission creep
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned mission creep in the article. What happens next time the MAFIAA wants some sites blocked and, oooh hey! Look! There just so happens to be blocking software already installed! Why wouldn't you also want it to block child pornographers,terrorists, and - worstof all - pirates?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 18 May 2015 @ 8:10am

Re:
You're totally right! You should go make your own search engine and compete with Google!
/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:12am

Re:
done about what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 8:13am

Re:
You mean like AOL's Ad Network and Facebook's ad network? Both of those exist and are relatively big players.

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 thread ]
beech, 18 May 2015 @ 8:13am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
I must have missed the news that Bing and Yahoo shut down...thanks for the timely (precog?) News.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:21am

Cue accusations of GOOGLE SHILL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rk57957 (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 8:33am

We must do something for the children!
I was curious about what you were wanting done.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:36am

Sounds eerily familiar to the threats of "pay me to do my job" threats that corrupt nations typically start telling businesses that are forced to work with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:38am

Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Masnick makes no argument, just assumes that position.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:39am

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
I missed that DuckDuckGo and Ixquick went down too as search engines. I use them religiously as search engines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:43am

Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Masnick makes no argument, just assumes that position.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:46am

Re:
Yes, because Cortana, Siri and Yahoo don't exist.

Moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:48am

Given Shine's ties to Israeli intelligence...
...I think perhaps someone should dissect this spyware product and figure out what it's capturing -- and who it's sharing that information with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 8:49am

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
I actually fail to see how forcing google to pay ISPs to deliver ads "reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything". As well, you make no argument, you just assume that that is Mike's position, so I fail to see how your commentary is any better.

Mike does not argue the point you bring up because it is not the position he is holding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:54am

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
And that does what to the conversation? I don't have a problem if Google is losing revenue due to another business. I have a problem when an ISP scans all of my traffic and blocks adds for me. I have my own tools to do that. Also, if they are doing it because they support the user then they need to do it to all ad companies and not just Google otherwise they just have a childish vendetta.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
"I missed that DuckDuckGo and Ixquick went down too as search engines. I use them religiously as search engines."

You do realize that those are not actually independent search engines, don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DigDug, 18 May 2015 @ 9:03am

Re: "But something has to be done".
Why does everyone think that Google controls how well they do on search and advertisement?

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 thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 9:03am

I'm sure this tool will end up doing an excellent job at its stated purpose and not blocking a bunch of random stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 9:10am

In other news the Deutsche Post is starting to deliver all magazines with ads taped over only, unless publishers allow it to participate from their revenue stream for those ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Oh, I forgot Google owns the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 9:14am

Re:
Do these plans apply to Google's competition too? Oh right, they dont exist anymore.

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?
This approach is bad but something has to be done

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 thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 9:38am

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Google directly funds Masnick.

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 thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 9:43am

Re:
I'm sure this tool will end up doing an excellent job at its stated purpose and not blocking a bunch of random stuff.

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 thread ]
DogBreath, 18 May 2015 @ 9:45am

Just like all the other attempts by European countries to get "their due" from Google...
I have a feeling it will still end up like this: Gimme The Cash
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 18 May 2015 @ 9:59am

What about the European web site?
You know, the ones that are depending on Google Adsense to help provide revenue for their 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 10:23am

Re: What about the European web site?
Good point. We've added a section that google still have to pay these sites based on past performance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 10:36am

Win win!
The consumers win because they don't have to view ads anymore, and the ISP wins because they still deduct the bandwidth that would have been used by the ads from the consumer's bandwidth allotment!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 10:47am

A couple of points
First off, I don't get the whole "Google is the enemy" position. If you choose to use Google (gmail, search, etc), then you are CHOOSING to use Google. Just because Google managed to make money, doesn't make them evil... just successful.

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 thread ]
JD, 18 May 2015 @ 10:54am

What other content will they unilaterally modify?
Let's say I'm a website owner, and I choose to run Google ads on my site. That means I'm effectively delegating the selection of some of my content to Google. I'm saying that I trust Google to place relevant and useful ads on the site in a way that will help me offset some of the costs of running that site (and maybe even earn some money).

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 10:56am

Re:
This is Europe where anything American should be punished just for being American, remember?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Yes, they own your house too ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 11:07am

Re: A couple of points
Given that they do this already for law enforcement (specifically the City of London police)? I expect that behavior if google doesn't capitulate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 11:12am

Re:
Could you indicate for me a search in which non-sponsored search results are paid for? Or are you complaining about sponsored results? In that case could you define sponsored search 'dominating' the first page? Cause that's like three results in a special box..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 11:16am

LOL Mike Masnick the Google Shill strikes again.

People hate Google, Mike. Go get a new job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 11:40am

ON COMPETITION:

>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 thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 11:56am

Re:
As a note, I was referring to the AC's assertion that something 'had to be done' about Google's monopoly justifies the ISPs actions, but thats beside the point you bring up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:09pm

Re:
Learn to distinguish between supporting someone, and objecting to someone else's attempt at bullying or blackmail that person or company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:25pm

Legal?
I'm not a lawyer but to me it seems that this is in a very dark grey zone.
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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:29pm

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
Ha, it looks like you were originally censored, so you had to post from a different IP. Never fear! That one will get censored as well!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 12:34pm

Re:
If you look at the search results for Google (or any other search engine) the first page is dominated by the companies who paid the most money

Care to try again?

Ixquick
Official site

www.ixquick.com - Proxy - Highlight
Ixquick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixquick - Proxy - Highlight

Ixquick (styled “ixquick”) is a metasearch engine based in New York and the Netherlands Founded by David Bodnick in 1998, Ixquick is owned by Surfboard ...
Startpage Web Search *

https://www.startpage.com/ - Proxy - Highlight

Startpage offers you Web search results from Google in complete privacy! When you search with Startpage, we remove all identifying information from your query and ...
Startpage Web Search *

https://www.startpage.com/m/ - Proxy - Highlight

Startpage offers high quality meta-search results in full privacy!
Ixquick Search Engine *

eu.ixquick.com - Proxy - Highlight

Ixquick
Download the Ixquick Toolbar - Ixquick Search Engine *

https://us2.ixquick.com/toolbar/ - Proxy - Highlight

More features: Click on the arrow next to Ixquick's logo to customize, your toolbar search, delete cookies or change the "setting" options. Easy switching between ...
Ixquick (@Ixquick) | Twitter *

https://twitter.com/Ixquick - Proxy - Highlight

The latest Tweets from Ixquick (@Ixquick). Ixquick is the world's most private metasearch engine. Netherlands
Ixquick | Facebook *

https://www.facebook.com/ixquick - Proxy - Highlight

Ixquick. 3,230 likes · 48 talking about this. https://ixquick.com is the world's most private search engine. Ixquick does not record your IP address or...
Ixquick *

www.ixquick.nl - Proxy - Highlight

Ixquick, a Metasearch Engine - About Web Search *

websearch.about.com/od/metasearchengines/a/ixquick.htm - Proxy - Highlight

What Is Ixquick? Ixquick is a metasearch engine, meaning that it pulls results from many different search engines and directories and presents them all in one simple ...
PRIVACY - How we protect you - Ixquick Search Engine *

https://us4.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html - Proxy - Highlight

Shocked? You are not alone. When we search, we share our most private thoughts with our computers. These private thoughts should be safe. Ixquick's position
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re:
This is Europe where anything American should be punished just for being American, remember?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:51pm

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
And who "directly funds" (to use your laughable language) you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:52pm

Re:
I really want to know what fantasy land you live in, but I imagine it's just a boring office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 1:01pm

Re: Re:
Looking at my ixquick result, I see one sponsored ad at the top and bottom for the same ad.

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 thread ]
Sunhawk, 18 May 2015 @ 2:10pm

Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
The thing is, this isn't blocking Google's ability to collect information - it's blocking Google (and others) from displaying ads (whether based on that information or not).

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Ya. that would be part of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 6:36pm

Re:
"People hate Google..."

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 7:26pm

Re:
How does giving the entrenched monopolist yet another revenue stream help foster competition among ISP's?

This story is about Europe, where I understand they don't have a problem with entrenched monopolist ISPs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 7:32pm

This should be good
I would think this would not affect Google at all.
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 thread ]
DigDug, 18 May 2015 @ 7:37pm

Wait for the malicious and intentional theft charges are filed against the Cell Companies
Not to mention what happens when the websites stop making money from webvertising, they'll turn around and sue the Cellular companies for 10x their loss in damages due to the "criminal intent" of stealing income from the websites.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 8:41pm

Does this effect ads outside of the internet , say billboards and commercials?.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrTroy (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 10:16pm

Re:
Not the billboards and commercials themselves, just the photos and vidcaps of them online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 11:46pm

Re:
"Do these plans apply to Google's competition too?
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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 12:35am

Re: Re:
"This story is about Europe, where I understand they don't have a problem with entrenched monopolist ISPs."

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 12:37am

Re: Re:
I've always imagined a dank basement, or perhaps the rec room of a mental health facility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2015 @ 1:52am

average_joe and out_of_the_blue just hate it when due process is enforced.

They also believe that reported comments are gospel truth.

So please report this comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2015 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re:
I think the US took the lead on this decades ago.

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 thread ]
jsf (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 6:14am

Re:
Yeah, Google is top dog in the mobile ad space, but only because they bought Admob.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2015 @ 6:28am

Re: Re:
Blind, deaf, and stupid?
No, it was "Deaf, mad, AND blind"
And then there was something about Torquay...

And it was much more fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
Except Jerry Lewis films.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 10:46am

Re: Re: Re:
And David Hasselhof.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 10:51am

Re: mission creep
Much as I agree that there is often some truth and predictive ability of The Domino Theory, I STILL don't believe we should to prohibit reasonable things because we don't like "the next logical step."

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 thread ]
lifeform23, 21 May 2015 @ 11:31am

ISP liability
In Canada the ISPs are immune from liability for things their customers do online, because they have no role in what their customers do online. The minute they start filtering content they accept liability for their customers' copyright infringemnts, libels, etc.
Be interesting to see if they try to have their cake and eat it too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rob, 24 May 2015 @ 3:00am

Re: Win win!
Yeah and then the website owner who displayed the ads turns to the old days of charging for content, and so does everyone else.
Good move. not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Manamongst, 25 May 2015 @ 3:54am

Re: A couple of points
That would be correct...if they (ISP´s) were set up...chances are given SSL and Googles existing ecommerce superiority, the ISP´s would only extort them into using there own adsense/emclicks hierarchy (ie. adding ISP specific coding to the already long-ass string.)

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 thread ]
Manamongst, 25 May 2015 @ 4:29am

Re: This should be good
This.

Job done. That´s why Google isn´t worried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]