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.
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.
Filed Under: ad blocking, europe, mobile ads, net neutrality
Companies: google, shine
Comments on “European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google”
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.
Re: Re:
This is Europe where anything American should be punished just for being American, remember?
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
Re: Re: Re:
Except Jerry Lewis films.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And David Hasselhof.
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
Re: Re:
You’re totally right! You should go make your own search engine and compete with Google!
/sarc
Re: Re:
done about what?
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
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.
Re: 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?
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Oh, I forgot Google owns the world.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Yes, they own your house too …
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 18th, 2015 @ 8:07am
Ya. that would be part of the world.
Re: 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?
Re: Re:
Yes, because Cortana, Siri and Yahoo don’t exist.
Moron.
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.
Re: 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?
Re: Re: Re:
No, it was “Deaf, mad, AND blind”
And then there was something about Torquay…
And it was much more fun.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
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?
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.
Cue accusations of GOOGLE SHILL
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.
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.
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!
Re: Anything that reduces Google's ability to vacuum up everything must be bad.
And who “directly funds” (to use your laughable language) you?
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
Re: Re: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure this tool will end up doing an excellent job at its stated purpose and not blocking a bunch of random stuff.
Re: 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
LOL Mike Masnick the Google Shill strikes again.
People hate Google, Mike. Go get a new job.
Re: Re:
Learn to distinguish between supporting someone, and objecting to someone else’s attempt at bullying or blackmail that person or company.
Re: Re:
I really want to know what fantasy land you live in, but I imagine it’s just a boring office.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve always imagined a dank basement, or perhaps the rec room of a mental health facility.
Re: 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.
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.)
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
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.
Re:
Care to try again?
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.
Re: This should be good
This.
Job done. That´s why Google isn´t worried.
Does this effect ads outside of the internet , say billboards and commercials?.
Re: Re:
Not the billboards and commercials themselves, just the photos and vidcaps of them online.
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.
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.