Mobile operators plan to block online advertising
 

Mobile operators plan to block online advertising - FT.com

Several mobile operators plan to block advertising on their networks, setting the stage for a battle with digital media companies such as Google, AOL and Yahoo.

One European wireless carrier told the Financial Times that it has installed blocking software in its data centres and planned to turn it on before the end of 2015. The software prevents most types of advertising from loading in web pages and apps, though it does not interfere with ?in-feed? ads of the kind used by Facebook and Twitter.

The blocking technology was developed by Shine, an Israeli start-up whose shareholders include Horizon Ventures, the investment fund of Li Ka-shing, Asia?s richest person. Mr Li also controls Hutchison Whampoa, one of the world?s largest telecoms groups. ?Tens of millions of mobile subscribers around the world will be opting in to ad blocking by the end of the year,? said Roi Carthy, chief marketing officer of Shine. ?If this scales, it could have a devastating impact on the online advertising industry.?

Verizon, the largest US telecoms group, this week paid $4.4bn to buy AOL, seeking to gain a foothold in the rapidly growing market for advertising on mobile devices. Marketers will spend almost $69bn this year on mobile ads ? more than triple the sum they spent two years ago ? according to research group eMarketer.

Shine said it was working with a number of operators, including one with almost 40m subscribers, though it declined to name them. An executive at a European carrier confirmed that it and several of its peers are planning to start blocking adverts this year. The executive said that the carrier will initially launch an advertising-free service for customers on an opt-in basis.

But it is also considering a more radical idea that it calls ?the bomb?, which would apply across its entire network of millions of subscribers at once. The idea is to specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues.

The Silicon Valley company is the world?s largest advertising business, generating $60bn a year from search, YouTube, and services such as Google Display Network and DoubleClick, which both deliver ads for third-party sites. The executive at the mobile operator considering ?the bomb? acknowledged that targeting Google could be risky from both a legal and public relations perspective. Under ?net neutrality? rules in the European Union and the US, telecoms companies are forced to treat all data that flow through their networks equally.

But even within those markets, it would be feasible to block adverts on Google ?just for an hour or a day? to bring the company to the negotiating table, the executive said. Many mobile operators are frustrated that digital media companies profit from their high-speed networks without having to invest in the infrastructure behind them. Such irritation was inflamed last month when Google launched Project Fi, its own wireless carrier in the US.

Google said it would be unreasonable for mobile operators to block ads, arguing that: ?People pay for mobile internet packages so they can access the apps, video streaming, webmail and other services they love, many of which are funded by ads. Google and other web companies invest heavily in developing these services ? and in the behind-the-scenes infrastructure to deliver them.?

Blocking advertising on mobile networks is likely to provoke a fierce backlash from digital media companies. In 2013, Free, the French internet service provider owned by Iliad, blocked ads by default through its Freebox modem, causing huge controversy. It was forced to scrap the initiative within a week under pressure from the Socialist government.

Mr Carthy of Shine said that eliminating intrusive adverts is a ?consumer right?, even if it undermines the business model of online publishers that rely on advertising. ?Online advertising is out of control and it?s polluting the user experience,? he said. Pop-ups, auto-playing videos and other forms of digital advertising can consume between 10 and 50 per cent of a mobile subscriber?s data plan, he added.

While ad-blocking is a new phenomenon on mobiles, it is more established on PCs and growing quickly. More than 140m people, or 5 per cent of the online population, use software such as Adblock Plus to eliminate adverts when browsing the web on laptops or desktop computers. As the Financial Times reported in February, Google, Microsoft and Amazon have paid the makers of Adblock Plus to allow some ads on their sites to slip through its filters.

Google?s relationship with ad-blocking is further complicated by the fact that such software is the most popular type of free add-on to Chrome, its popular web browser.

:mad::mad::mad:

Block advertising? Shouldn't this be for users to decide?

Yes it should be. The arguments about successful companies not paying for carriers' infrastructures are absurd.

"The idea is to specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues."

No shame...

lol, what are they smoking ?

what ^^ said is correct.

The arguments about successful companies not paying for carriers' infrastructures are absurd.

i wont be surprised if i see google in mobile network in near future.

oh wait its already happening

ref: https://www.google.com/#q=google+mobile+network+

fuck greedy companies.,

Chinese cash and Israeli tech... and we thought mindgeek was bad. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

@Nico: For gods sake we were not talking about this on Saturday, we would have not enjoyed the lamb that much...

This is a disaster for me as someone who has mainstream free sites that cost me a small fortune to update with content and are supported by ads.

My other income source is that I manage clients PPC advertising and this will hurt them and in turn hurt me too.

I also own a significant amount of Google stock and I feel as though this is biting me from every direction.

If it is illegal to defeat DRM, why should it be legal to block ads - especially when not giving the customer a choice or as a 3rd party holding the advertiser for ransom?

The end result is it will kill many online and marketing businesses and harm consumers.

PS In thinking about this, this could be the single most damaging thing to my business I have every experienced and could very well put me under.

http://www.africancasting.com/adapt.jpg
I always wanted to say that.:2 cents:

Just run political ads then sue everybody for 1st amendment rights.

Good for them to block AdSense ... Google has had a free ride on the backs of webmasters and carriers for too long. The premise of a ''cut'' of the action sucks however. The Mobile carriers are greedy fucks in that aspect.

Maybe one day: Webmasters will charge Google for the rights to use the webmaster's content in the SERPs so they can sell their AdWords. An Interweb Google Tax :2 cents:

The Web just has to have the balls to block Googlebot for 90 days (one quarter and crash Google's stock) -- it will never happen so long as some get to chew on the bones that Goggle tosses its ''dogs.''

Pretty sure this will be mitigated. Too much at stake.

Damn, that was good lamb....

Not going to happen. Quoting is and most likely will be a right in the future too, as well as making catalogs, directories, etc.

At least it would kill Brassmonkey News if quoting is illegal. And maybe general linking too, as it is part of quoting/ reference. If you want to quote this message it costs 10 $. Thanks in advance.

Short quoting as in a few relevant sentences is fair use. Deep linking to content that is ''open to the public'' is a good practice -- sharing internet traffic between websites circumvents Google and reduces the value of their ads.

It's probably the only webocracy left today ...
defined: webocracy - Wiktionary

Brassmonkey's quoting of Yahoo! News may irritate you, but by doing so he is fighting the Google machine, whether he realizes it or not :2 cents:

Do you mean by sharing traffic=linking? Not very ground breaking idea. :)

I am not irritated by Brassmonkey's news. It was just an example about the impacts of quoting ban.