Well done three
to receive ads that are “relevant and interesting"
Although I'm sure your motives are Evil, but as they say fight Evil with Evil ... wait .......
Three UK and Three Italia are to offer network-level ad-blocking software from startup Shine Technologies to their customers. The telcos have implemented Shine’s ads blocker in the UK and Italy with plans for rapid rollout in Three’s other markets. The carriers are owned by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which has …
Seems more like an effort to charge multiple times for the same internet access.
As for the rest, Three have past form. They've already shared information with US based service via Bluecoat and their US based servers.
https://patrick.seurre.com/?p=42
Now they're using an Israeli based company with apparently strong links to the US. What could possibly go wrong with that? For that matter if they do engage in sharing data outside the EU then what consent will they get from customers *before* sharing starts when there is no Safe Harbour and the so-called Privacy Shield is a complete joke?
"I'd love to see an explanation of how they can deliver "relevant" advertising without capturing and storing personal information that otherwise wouldn't be needed."
Me too, but I'm still waiting to see how they deliver relevant advertising when they *do* capture and store relevant information.
In one sense this is every bit as bad as the Phorm trial. Back then BT used packet inspection to determine what ads were "relevant"
Even though Three might be stripping much of the advertising crud that is on the network, making a decision regarding relevant ads based on packet content could get them into the same sort of hot water.
Suspect that in the end it might come down to an approved list of advertisers a la AdBlockPlus
> In one sense this is every bit as bad as the Phorm trial
Me dear lad, you seem to forget that the problem with the Phorm thing was that it was done without the user's knowledge or consent. Whereas this is a service that you can opt into (at least in Italy it is opt-in, I saw a brochure not long ago).
> Suspect that in the end it might come down to an approved list of advertisers a la AdBlockPlus
Why would that be a problem? Especially when, with ABP, you can decide whether or not to allow those approved ads through. Advertising in itself is not a bad thing, it's the clunky, abusive, and annoying way it's often done that puts people off.
I'd assume illegal in the sense of interfering with network traffic between the user and their destination. Even if it's something benign like stripping ads out of a webpage there's probably some law somewhere that classifies this as intercepting potentially confidential information.
So they make it opt-in.
Then Three can point to the fact that the consumer made an informed choice to use the ad-blocking software. After all, the consumer would have to choose the "I agree" box below a 15000-word legalese agreement that they read in the 2 seconds it took them to click that "I agree" button.
I can see the logic that it would be illegal to read or modify that data without the user's consent (unless you are one of Edward Snowden's former colleagues) but less so if the consumer has actively requested it.
> But blocking ads at network level? probably illegal, but most certainly bad idea.
Remember that there are no absolutes in law. With that said, if it is done with the user's free and informed consent, it should be kosher, according to my half semester of computer law (and that's all the authority I can pull in this subject!)
With that proviso, why would it be a bad idea though?
For the avoidance of doubt:
when you write
"Relevant" means people who've paid.
do you mean
"Relevant advertising" means adverts that the advertiser has paid the telco for, so that the network level blocking will not obstruct the adverts in question
Clarification very welcome.
I'm thinking an earlier version of the Shine scheme used the screen space freed up by blocking ads to deliver telco-selected adverts. Or is that just left over memory from the Phorm era?
edit: How does this work properly in the era when much (most?) advertising is delivered by Google and other ad-flinging outfits, rather than directly by the individual advertisers concerned?
"Relevant" means people who've paid.
Yes. And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality. Of course, if ad supported sites find this a problem, and start blocking Three, then it does become a neutrality issue that the users will care about. But in the meantime, Three hope to "monetise" ad streaming over and above the data allowances that users have paid for and in theory already pay for the (largely unwanted) ads.
Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it. If they want to make it fair, then lets see them ignore all ads when calculating data usage for mobile customers.
In the wider scheme, its the same pressure as causing Vodafone to sack its few remaining UK workers, or EE to jump into BT's arms: the City (in EE's case not the City of London) want growth from their telecoms babies. With average users only wanting a dumb pipe and a phone on lease purchase there's not much growth, and pressure on pricing for the commodity service. So the only option is to try and cut costs further, or constrict the pipe and then flog an "upgraded" service to ad slingers (today, users next year?).
Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it.
That's how newspapers etc work. If it enables an ISP to offer a better service or maintain their prices to customers then that I suggest is a good thing.
Remember it is the customer who is, currently, paying for the mobile data service, not the advertiser...
Aside: El Reg published this about Shine's proposition last year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/you_should_not_be_paying_for_ads_please_buy_our_software/
There is more to this than simply the goal of 3 to get additional payments (the "fighting net neutrality in the advertising space") as mobile networks are generally congested and if they can cut bandwidth use for *everyone* by around 30% or more due to blocking bloated ads, then it will help end users a lot.
While I have no sympathy for advertisers due to the highly intrusive and resource-hogging sh*t they push, I do have reservations about what this will mean long-term for equal access if only the big hosts can pay to push their sh*t.
"Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it. If they want to make it fair, then lets see them ignore all ads when calculating data usage for mobile customers."
A scheme whereby the customer pays for the 2Kb of content and the advertiser pays for the 2Mb of advertising seems a reasonable scheme. And if the advertiser decides that that's too much they can either stop advertising altogether or devise simpler ads.
I've often heard it said that people always have two reasons for doing something: the good reason, and the real reason. So we have "protecting our customers' privacy from intrusive advertising." That's the good reason.
"And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality."
Aaaaand... there's the real reason.
My first thought on reading this article was "this is an attempt to establish a precedent for undermining net neutrality." It's no secret that telcos hate net neutrality and have been fighting it for years, because it blocks them from milking some potentially massive revenue streams. So if they can implement a system whereby they can apply their anti-net-neut principles to something that everyone hates and thus gain popular support for it, they have a precedent they can use to violate net neutrality on multiple other fronts - and suddenly webmasters will be paying subs to ISPs to allow customers to view their sites.
I believe the threat to net neutrality this move poses far exceeds the threat posed by advertising. People can already block ads by installing ad blockers; they don't need their ISPs to do it for them. This needs to be opposed, and brought to the attention of the net-neutrality enforcement institutions.
Is also blocked at network level. Traffic from abroad is sent back to the UK and the likes of spotify, Play Store and Google Maps are filtered then throttled to death so they don't work (although Three deny this and blame the local networks which include Three)
This is nothing new for Three.
Gnnnnaaaaa. Feel at home is a waste of time for data in my experience. Can just about use it for to check email when not on wifi but other than that, its useless. No facetime, no spotify, certainly no casual browsing and no 4g (although prob not 3 at fault there? but so what if everything is throttled to a crawl). Maps are almost useable if absolutely lost. At least you can call someone in the UK and tell them you are lost for free so Feel at home does work well in other ways.
It could be interesting, apart from the cuddles and punches going behind the scenes, I wonder what Google would do to combat this. Perhaps a curt F... OFF!!! message similar to that show on google maps, when you block flash? Or a "bend over or pay us" offer when you install or run their "free" software?
3 might not save much in the way of internet data, but the important commodity to them is mobile bandwidth. Which is limited by radio spectrum and how many transmitters they wish to build. So that's a real financial saving. Especially as in the cenre of big cities, so may customers are using data that they often struggle to maintain performance. The only other solution to which is smaller cells, and more towers. That costs lots more than a few chunky servers.
The blocking technology is provided by Israeli start-up Shine, the shareholders of which include Horizon Ventures, the investment fund of Asia’s richest person Li Ka-shing. Ka-shing is the chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, one of the world’s biggest telecommunications groups.